Bjorn Lomborg often points out that AIDS and malaria are devastating parts of the developing world, and that we could easily and relatively cheaply invest in effective solutions that would save millions. This is entirely true. The question we should ask is: what does this have to do with climate change?
The world has long-known about such ruinous diseases and has done shockingly little to fight these largely preventable killers. Does this mean that we should also do nothing to try and curb the emerging catastrophe of climate change?
Lets put is this way, Lomborg’s well-worn argument cooked up through the Copenhagen Consensus is as nonsensical as suggesting that if you are diagnosed with cancer, you shouldn’t bother doing anything about it because it is more cost effective to brush your teeth.