Carbon Cuts Won’t Work

Please! If we really must ignore the scientific method, close off all further debatge, and relegate the human-induced global climate change issue to the domain of politics, let's at least be reasonable about the terms of political compromise. Let the economists do what they do best.

I recently launched a website, www.morethanahybrid.org, to raise awareness on Global Warming. Please feel free to post a comment, become a fan on facebook and/or share with everyone you know. The People Who are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World are the Ones Who Do.

Mr Lomborg's 1st wrong statement is about the scenarios.
-what he means is that it is wildly improbable in the 'next hundred years'. if he would have said this, it would have been right, but then people would ask "so what's after that?" and for then the scenarios are (unfortunately) wildly right and it will be way more than 'just' 6 metres if i may add.

the 2nd wrong statement is that "cutting emissions has failed spectacularly in the past.???
-failing the target by 25% means that we achieved 75%. imagine how much worse the situation of emissions would be if there would have been no target. those countries that have made the largest promises have actually proven that it's possible. germany and denmark have promised reduction by more than 20% and both have succeeded. even better the uk who have promised 12% and have also achieved almost 20% now!

3rd statement is about the ???US cap-and-trade bill??? thing.
-it's misleading, as no one outside the US actually wants the stupid US laws on climate change as they're completely insufficient to deal with the problem.

the 4th and most distasteful statement is that the emission goals "would likely come at a huge sacrifice to prosperity."
-it sounds so logical, but it's extremely unethical, as this "damage" that is being avoided is basically only material damage. what about all those people in those african and south asian countries which have done nothing wrong, haven't emitted any greenhouse gases at all and still have to die, starve, get ill, because WE, who we are responsible for the whole ***, dont wanna "sacrifice our prosperity".

Lomborg is making 2 proposals for saving the planet then, both very questionable:

the 1st is to invest into climate engineering, that means to do something very largescale to our environment. however good it might sound, we should NOT ACCEPT that *** being done to our only homeworld, if we dont know EXACTLY what we are doing. we are not talking about building a particle accelerator. this is gambling with the planet. if something sounds too good to be true, then in most cases it is.

the 2nd one is to invest money in research for green energy instead of cutting emissions. basically Lomborg is one of those people who thinks that we shouldn't think too much ahead with those worst case scenarios as there will be some new technology available that solves the problem. this mistake has often been made before. when nuclear energy became prominent, everyone trusted on future technology to deal with the waste, but NOTHING has come out of that so far. not a single country in the world has established a final storage site for highly radioactive waste so far, cause it's all not safe enough for long time storage. so the approach itself is wrong. u should never trust on something utopian which "might' be developed some day. u have to make decisions based on what u have and not on what u might have.