;)
Bjorn Lomborg's article in the New York post riffs on his traditional theme of prioritising spending on areas where the greatest benefits can be gained. It's not rocket science of course, although perhaps on the tricky side for your typical environmentalist.
As ever, Lomborg is fully accepting of mainstream climate science, as well as some of the wilder claims that are made about the impacts. Take malaria, for example. Lomborg accepts claims that malaria will be a bigger problem in a warming world, but does not accept that this is an argument for spending money on climate mitigation:
The Kyoto Protocol’s carbon cuts could save 1,400 malaria deaths for about $180 billion a year. By contrast, just $500 million spent on direct anti-malaria policies could save 300,000 lives. Each time climate policies can save one person from malaria, smart malaria policies can save more than 77,000 people.
I'm not sure the comparison is a fair one, since the Kyoto spend is alleged to have other benefits. But on another measure, Lomborg is actually being kind to the greens. The problem is that there is little evidence to support the underlying claim about global warming increasing malaria incidence: as Gething et al noted five years ago, recent rises in global temperatures have been accompanied by a "marked global decline" in the disease.
In malaria terms, therefore, the Kyoto spend is almost completely irrelevant and therefore a waste.