1. + Class 18: Debating Lomborg P. Brian Fisher CofC: POLS 405 Spring 2011

2. + Lomborg’s Proposal 1. Massive investments in R&D Commit 0.05% of GDP Should be enough to keep temp from increasing beyond 5°F (from today). 2. Avoid emission cuts—waste of $$ b/c “global warming damages run about 1% GDP, while cost is at 2% GDP Stern: Cost is 1% GDP while benefits are 20% (giving increasing costs of inaction)

4. + Global Marshall Plan (Gore) Five strategic goals 1. stabilizing of world population 2. the rapid development of environmentally appropriate technologies 3. a comprehensive change in the economic "rules of the road" by which we measure the impact of our decisions on the environment 4. negotiation & approval of a new generation of international agreements 5. a cooperative plan for educating the world's citizens about our global environment. SEE: www.globalmarshallplan.orgwww.globalmarshallplan.org

5. + Vids Pawlyn Part 2 Pawlyn Part 3 Pawlyn Debates Lomborg Part 2 Part 3 Lomborg on Panel debate (Munk Debate) Dec 2009 (Stern Report) Lomborg on Panel debate Lomborg’s final argument (Munk Debate) (4m) Lomborg’s final argument

6. + Countering Lomborg: To Mitigate GCC or not? All affected including US—mitigated now is a reduced cost to all Technology driven—technology race  Lomborg just calls for more R&D, not driven by sectoral or emissions targets that fuel innovation Collapsing ecosystems Diminishing ecosystem services which will increase their cost (not accounted for by Lomborg) Climate inertia and potential “Runaway global warming”—major tipping points No looking back…can’t change your mind 20-30 later…effects are irreversible