Op-ed argues climate change saves more lives

When you go shopping – whether at the corner store, or at the ritzy Galeries Lafayette or Printemps here in Paris – you expect to know what you’re spending and what you’re getting.

Strangely, when it comes to global climate treaties, our politicians like to commit to hugely expensive policies without even acknowledging that they come with a price tag.

If you don’t learn from history, you’re bound to repeat it. Here in Saint-Denis, northern Paris, a history lesson is sorely needed.

Thousands are gathering here for the 21st international global warming meeting. Hotels are already near-full, broadcasters are setting up, protestors are preparing to roar.

All because this summit is "the last chance" to avert dangerous temperature rises, if we listen to the Earth League or a bunch of others. It’s going to be "too late" if a meaningful treaty isn’t negotiated here in the next few days, says the French president.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, talks about the costs and benefits of attacking climate change with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Lomborg argues that we should always be aware of tradeoffs and effectiveness when assessing policies to reduce global warming. He advocates for realistic solutions that consider the potential to improve human life in other ways. He is skeptical of the potential to move away from fossil fuels and argues that geo-engineering and adaptation may be the most effective ways to cope with climate change.