Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Hot or Not?

Subscribe to The Ricochet PodcastSubscribe

This week on the world famous Ricochet Podcast, our own Bethany Mandel sits in for Peter Robinson as we parse Amazon's departure from NYC, discuss the climate with noted expert Bjorn Lomborg, and talk politics with the WSJ (and Manhattan Institute's) Jason Riley. Also, is CPAC now just a grifter's convention? We discuss, you opine.

Music from this week's show: Heatwave by Ella Fitzgerald

Hosts:
Bethany MandelJames LileksRob Long
Guests:
Bjørn LomborgJason Riley

Discussion (57)

  • DonG@DonG

    Why does Bjorn assert that AGW will cost exactly 2-4% GDP? Why is this not challenged? Impossible economic predictions based on impossible climate predictions based on unsettled science. How do you economists have a sense of humor? They use decimal points.

    Cheap electricity is prosperity.

  • Full Size Tabby@FullSizeTabby

    My problem with spending even $120 per year on "preventing global warming" is that I have very little to no confidence that whomever is deciding where to apply that money will apply it to something that will actually matter, particularly if that "whomever" is a government person.

    To the extent someone is proposing a big US government action such as the Green New Deal, that deals only with activity in the US. As has been pointed out by many (including Mr. Lomborg), if you want to impact "global" climate, you need to deal with China, India, and (I would add) Africa. And those places will take care of things themselves as they get richer (once people stop having to worry about imminent starvation they start to care about the cleanliness of their surroundings). So, to me the best program to take care of the environment is to allow other people to become wealthier than they are.

  • Henry Castaigne@HenryCastaigne
    ReplyingtoFull Size Tabby

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    My problem with spending even $120 per year on “preventing global warming” is that I have very little to no confidence that whomever is deciding where to apply that money will apply it to something that will actually matter, particularly if that “whomever” is a government person.

    To the extent someone is proposing a big US government action such as the Green New Deal, that deals only with activity in the US. As has been pointed out by many (including Mr. Lomborg), if you want to impact “global” climate, you need to deal with China, India, and (I would add) Africa. And those places will take care of things themselves as they get richer (once people stop having to worry about imminent starvation they start to care about the cleanliness of their surroundings). So, to me the best program to take care of the environment is to allow other people to become wealthier than they are.

    Much of China and India's pollutions comes from their dumb state control. Mao really hurt the country's environment with his communism which created all the pollution of early industrial capitalism and non of the wealth. India's socialism has prevented the country from prospering for decades.

Scroll for later comments
+52 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 57 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.