http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1522706 A decidedly Orwellian turn: the Economist reacts to the DCSD’s poorly written anti-Lomborg judgement (see bottom).
(Lomborg has taught me not that environmentalists can be ignored (they can’t) but that environmental problems represent just some of the problems the world faces, and in deciding where to allocate resources, these concerns must be set against each other. What is the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol? What are the benefits—and are they guaranteed? Does it make more sense to immunise children against disease, eradicate malaria, provide fresh drinking water to those without it, save the whales? I think it fair to ask these sorts of questions of those soliciting donations: if you’re from, say, Save the Children, why does your charity deserve my money over AI, the Royal Children’s Hospital, Greenpeace, the local school?) 17:25
