Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast #339

... people all around the world, their lives are basically dependent on fossil fuels. And so, the idea that we're going to get people off by making it so expensive that it becomes impossible for them to live good lives is almost morally reprehensible.

People who have the most basic science literacy, like who know the most about greenhouse effect, they're at both ends of the spectrum of views on climate, dismissives and alarmed.

What is likely the worst effect of climate change? The following is a conversation with Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin on the topic of climate change. It is framed as a debate, but with the goal of having a nuanced conversation talking with each other, not at each other. I hope to continue having debates like these, including on controversial topics. I believe in the power of conversation to bring people together, not to convince one side or the other, but to enlighten both with the insights and wisdom that each hold. Bjorn Lomborg is the president of Copenhagen Consensus Think Tank and author of False Alarm, Cool It, and Skeptical Environmentalist. Please check out his work at lomborg.com that includes his books, articles, and other writing. Andrew Revkin is one of the most respected journalists in the world on the topic of climate. He's been writing about global environmental change and risk for more than 30 years, 20 of it at the New York Times. Please check out his work in the link tree that includes his books, articles, and other writing. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Bjorn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin. There's a spectrum of belief on the topic of climate change, and the landscape of that spectrum has probably changed over several decades. On one extreme, there's a belief that climate change is a hoax, it's not human-caused. To pile on top of that, there's a belief the institution, scientific, political, the media are corrupt and are kind of, uh, constructing this fabrication. That's one extreme. And then the other extreme, uh, there's, um, a level of alarmism about the catastrophic impacts of climate change that lead to the extinction of, uh, human civilization. So, not just economic costs, hardship, suffering, but literally the destruction of the human species in the short term. Okay, so that's the spectrum, and I would love to find the center. And my sense is, and the reason I wanted to talk to the two of you, aside from the humility with which you approach this topic, is I feel like you're close to the center and are on different sides of that center, if it's possible to define a center. Like, there is a political center for center left and center right. Of course, it's very difficult to define, but can you help me define what the extremes are again, as they have changed over the years, what they are today, and where's the center?