Albert Einstein, one of the greatest geniuses of the last century, has a special feature that has characterized it differently than many of his colleagues: the sense of humor. Now old, established and universally recognized, was interviewed by a journalist at Princeton, where he spent the last years of his long professional life. The girl, who admired the genius in front of him, and asked him several questions, about the Theory of Relativity, he asked innocently as he could never have so many brilliant ideas. Einstein, sly, smiling beneath his drooping mustache, said something like this "look at that lady in my life I've had only one real bright idea (the theory of relativity) and still I could not understand it completely!"
In this episode, I thought reading Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist, is not true that the Earth is in danger." In fact, he takes over the definition of madness that Einstein had given the simplicity that characterizes the great minds: "Insanity is continuing to do the same things expecting different results." Lomborg reminds us to stigmatize the obtuse approach for over eighteen years the developed world, and primarily the European Union, has adopted and continues to follow towards the issue of climate change.
As time passes, the scientific results are accumulated and they are prevailing interpretative doubts on previous certainties also showing that Nature is much more complex than trying to force a justification of the proposals scientific ideas. UN Commission on the legendary, the IPCC, shows its limits by time from a professional approach to Bulgaria who ruled over the years every single position dissenting from prevailing thought in it. This can not erase the stains of serious behavior that have emerged in recent years and which undermine the scientific credibility. As for the implication of Ethics and professional integrity that comes from this situation, forget it.
Today, the world will spend astonishing figures in the so-called green economy but always along the same roads, no new vision, refusing to face reality for what it is and not what is defined so that things return. And in fact missing from the equation and nature go its own way.
Despite these clear inconsistencies that should lead to reflect, however, the European bureaucracy, does not pay the humiliating defeat of Copenhagen, raised by proposing an increase in the levels of CO2 reduction from 20% to 30%, you would like to see achieved in the Union. In fact, despite all the talk of many, in reality the situation is less bright, well below the utopian hopes of the optimists who provided the statement to the bitter end of the green economy, so fascinating to say but extremely expensive. His final results are not satisfactory and, most importantly, this approach is not shared by the countries in the developing world instead of wanting to achieve, firstly, levels of energy production "heavy" and the primary sources right, as did the rich countries before them.
Not surprisingly, at this time of deadlock in climate it is spoken very little in the media, and all the experts agree that the next meeting in Cancun in December may not be decisive in any way but will represent only, or at most a interim stage in between.
Lomborg, applying the positive consequences of Einstein's definition of madness, to see things more clearly and make a contribution to the truth without conditions, has assembled a group of scholars that also includes Nobel laureates, in a Last Supper, the Copenhagen Consensus, which chosen men faced the problems of humanity, including climate, not on a priori ideological, but rather a pragmatic approach by identifying which ones are most urgent and what are the most effective ways to solve them.
This approach took into account the economic analysis and in parallel, a subject recently treated in general, producing unexpected results in stark contrast to the clichés of the majority. Here they are: the situation is much less worrisome than was described. Therefore, they are challenged "certainties" served up by the gurus of the IPCC and easily endorsed by politicians more careful about riding the trends of the moment to consider the information critically checking its veracity.
A further result of the group in Copenhagen, which also recognizes the existence of climate problems without considering their very often are sold as is that which identifies an inverse relationship between the first and economic development: the more it grows, fewer problems are determined, in spite of everything from climate change. This phenomenon occurs because of the high adaptability of man that has been developed and refined over the millennia. Moreover, the result is even more obvious but which no one had paid insufficient attention to date, is the finding according to which "if you are a poor country does not have the resources to meet the challenges, when, in fact there is growth, a country has the means to tackle seriously the environmental challenges ", not just those.
If the income statements and estimates are correct, what is striking in the results of the Copenhagen Consensus is the cost needed to address the environmental challenge compared to the expected benefits: for every euro spent will return a few cents. These results leave that stone and should give pause to all political leaders and taxpayers.
Conversely, if the political attention is turning to other major issues unresolved tragically, the results would be very different: for example, for every euro spent to fight hunger in the world seriously, the estimated return is 20 euro. It 's a frightening figure: if we would be naive to ask why this does not happen and why politicians never thought of that?
The answers are all too evident: the green economy that accompanies it are handled huge amounts of money that moves industries, banks, consultants and generating wealth for some hot air for the people ox.
Fighting hunger in the world has only one valence humanitarian concerns in the best case the consciences of the most sensitive, however, undertakes little or nothing to big business because there is little to gain, there are no markets to create and manage.
And then the hunger in the World is a theme that is good for a sigh, from time to time, as a small cash contribution to silence the conscience. And then, let's be honest, world hunger it's not pure, clean as the green economy, and renewable sources like that do not pollute, no hunger in the world is "dirty": just look at the photos of the Slums of Africa, landfills live in India, or the thousands of tragic reality.
But we're crazy? It 'best to continue without us away from our living rooms, of course, to fill the mouth platitudes, plus talk about climate change, however you put it, make up, cry intellectual and very demanding course with no obligation.