Bjørn Lomborg

And that, of course, you know, this is the meteor hurtling towards Earth, and then this is the only thing we should be focusing on.

I understand why she's making that argument.

I think it's...

At the end of the day, it's incorrect, and I'm sure we'll get around to talking about that.

And one of the things is, of course, that her whole generation, you know, I can understand why they're saying, you know, if we're going to be dead in 12 years, why would I want to study?

You know, why would I really care about anything?

So I totally want to sort of pull Greta and many others out of this end of the world fear, but I totally get why she's doing it.

I think she's done a service in the sense that she's gotten more people to talk about climate change.

And that's good because we need to have this discussion.

I think it's unfortunate.

And this is just what happens in almost all policy discussions that they end up being, you know, sort of discussions from from the extreme groups because it's just more fun on media to to have sort of the the total deniers and the and the people who say we're going to die tomorrow.

And it sort of becomes that discussion.

It's more, you know, it's more sort of a mud wrestling fight.

And again, I think also it very easily ends up sort of skewing our conversation about what are the actual solutions.

Because yes, it's great to get rid of the diesel bus, but probably not for the reason people think.

It's because diesel buses are really polluting

in the air pollution sense.

And that is why you should get rid of them.

And again, if you really wanted to help people, for instance, with hurricanes, you should have better rules and zoning in Florida, which is a very different outcome.

So the mud wrestling fight also gets our attention diverted towards solutions that seem