Articles & Videos

The trade war between the United States and China has prompted many commentators to focus on the economic pain that will be felt by the two sides: hitting U.S. consumers in the pocket, and causing pain for Chinese exporters. There are a small number of supposed winners, with production predicted to shift from China to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia or India.

But there’s a far bigger concern, which is that decision-makers across the world have shifted sharply against the most powerful global economic development tool ever been discovered.

New Zealand is being lauded for introducing the world’s first Wellbeing Budget, which aims to shift the focus from GDP toward the “wellbeing of people.” Those with a grudge against the GDP indicator – in particular greens, who blame economic growth for harming the environment – see this as an exciting new opportunity to stop chasing dollars and start caring about people.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a plan to reduce plastic pollution, which will include a ban on single-use plastics as early as 2021. This is laudable: plastics clog drains and cause floods, litter nature and kill animals and birds.

Of course, plastic also makes our lives better in a myriad of ways. In just four decades, plastic packaging has become ubiquitous because it keeps everything from cereals to juice fresher and reduces transportation losses, while one-use plastics in the medical sector have made syringes, pill bottles and diagnostic equipment safer.

Anfang des Monats erklärte das britische Parlament, der Planet stehe vor einem " Klimanotstand". Damit war Großbritannien, nach Städten wie Los Angeles, London, Vancouver und Basel, das erste Land, das sich derart drastisch ­äußerte. Dies ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür, was in der Klimapolitik falsch läuft: Politiker geben pompöse, Angst erzeugende Erklärungen ab, die von der wirtschaftlichen Realität völlig abgetrennt sind - und auch von der Lösung der Probleme, zu der sie angeblich beitragen sollen.

Den kontroversielle politolog, klimadebattør Bjørn Lomborg har siden Kyoto-aftalen 1997 været en insisterende torn i øjet på landets klimaforkæmpere.

Hans modstand over for den grønne omstilling har i 20 år bundet i økonomiske cost-benefit-analyser, hvor man ifølge Lomborg bruger alt for mange ressourcer på at omstille til sol- og vindenergi set i forhold til udbyttet.

Probablemente usted haya visto los últimos titulares alarmantes: el aumento del nivel del mar debido al cambio climático podría obligar a 187 millones de personas a abandonar sus hogares por riesgo de inundaciones. No los crea. Esa cifra no es realista y ni siquiera es novedosa. Aparece en un nuevo artículo académico, cuyos autores la extrajeron de otro artículo publicado en 2011. 

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.

Chancellor Phillip Hammond was slapped down by Downing Street last week for warning that reaching net zero carbon emissions could cost the UK £1 trillion and require cuts to funding for schools, hospitals and the police force. Climate change needs a response, but Mr Hammond is right to highlight the cost – and in fact, he is likely to be underestimating the real price-tag.