Bjorn Lomborg

Because the technocrats who are pushing the solutions at the moment are doing a really bad job of pushing their case.

They are tending towards the authoritarian, which we don't like, and telling you whether you can or can't eat meat and all those sorts of things.

And again, if you were being pragmatic about this, you'd start by saying, what do people most value?

How do we reduce the impact of those things?

So people value travel.

They value what they eat.

And as soon as a country comes out of poverty, what do they do?

They start eating more meat.

It's highly prized, highly nutritious.

So you would start with a pragmatic question of how do we reduce the impact of the things that people value, which makes them more likely to come with us on the

on.

But that's not what we're doing at all.

What we're doing is we start this with an ideological preference, which is that people consume less, they travel less, they drive less, they eat vegan, they do whatever it is that we think is a good lifestyle.

And what we're going to do is we're going to cram that down on them.

That is not a winning proposition, I would suggest.

And yet we're

The BBC, you know, as soon as the BBC is talking about climate change, it takes seconds before they've gone on to meat eating or they've gone on to flying.

They can't keep away from it.

And yet there are massive impacts in all sorts of areas that are much more important to talk about because there are bigger impacts that have systemic impact.

engineering challenges that can be done at scale why wouldn't you do those things first why wouldn't you focus on those things first and persuade people that actually you're working on their behalf you're working so that they can have more of the things that they value long into the future and that their kids can have those things as well and then if at some point in the future if you have to turn around and say we really wanted you to be able to have this but actually we can't