I just came across this link at Bureaucrash, and I've decided it's my new favourite article on global warming and the policies to fight it.
Kyoto proponents should do their best to last past the first few paragraphs - Lomborg doesn't deny that global warming is happening or that humans caused it, but is frustrated by the stubbornness of politicians and scientists who refuse to look at policies other than direct carbon-reduction and Kyoto, which have been ineffective thus far, to fight global warming and the problems it would cause.
Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don't point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global warming in the long run. But I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it.
It is the fact that this frustration, which I think should be very uncontroversial, is instead written off without a thought or scoffed at by so many policy-makers and Kyoto advocates *cough*DavidSuzuki*cough* that puts me at odds with environmentalists when it comes to global warming and what we need to do to fight it.
Do give the article a read, and pass it along. This is the kind of thinking that we need to be doing if we want to make sure that the fallout of global warming is minimized and we help as many people and as much as nature through the process as we possibly can.
cross-posted to: The Natural Society