lomborg173_ISSOUF SANOGOAFPGetty Images_climate

Cómo las políticas climáticas afectan a los pobres

Sep 26, 2019 Bjørn Lomborg

NUEVA YORK – En los últimos 25 años, se ha logrado sacar de la pobreza a casi 1.200 millones de personas en todo el mundo, al mismo tiempo que la desnutrición y el riesgo de muerte por contaminación ambiental han disminuido. En conjunto, estos logros son prácticamente un milagro. Pero dos tendencias globales hoy amenazan con desacelerar el impulso en la reducción de la pobreza.

La primera es la oposición nacionalista al libre comercio. El creciente proteccionismo está poniendo en peligro el crecimiento –inclusive en los países más pobres del mundo, que serían los más beneficiados con un sistema de comercio global más abierto-. Por caso, concluir la Ronda Doha de conversaciones comerciales globales, estancada desde hace tanto tiempo, podría hacer que el mundo fuera 11 billones de dólares más rico cada año para 2030 y sacaría a otros 145 millones de personas de la pobreza.

El libre comercio tiene costos, y los gobiernos deberían invertir más para respaldar a las poblaciones vulnerables en los países ricos. Sin embargo, estos costos están superados inmensamente por los beneficios para los consumidores y los productores. La oposición al libre comercio, por ende, va en contra de la evidencia económica.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Bjørn Lomborg

Writing for PS since 2005
176 Commentaries

Bjørn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. His books include The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World, and, most recently, Prioritizing Development. In 2004, he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people for his research on the smartest ways to help the world.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Daniel Williams Oct 12, 2019

Bjorn Lomborg exists to cater for that corner of the brain that says - who cares? Do it anyway.. utter selfishness and half-baked 'theories' and alternative facts that do not agree with 97% of peer reviewed science.

Its like trying to keep the dream of santa claus alive for adults while they stuff their pockets full of Exxons latest shareholder giveaway.

Has he never heard of the Oil Curse? Does he not know that sophisticated social welfare programs do not exist in poor countries, and instead the money is spent on arms and militias? In fact when is someone going to sit down and spend the time to explain all this to Bjorn? Its frightening.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank Weyhers Sep 29, 2019

Translation to german is wrong. 1.2 billion -> 1,2 Millarden
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Smith Sep 27, 2019

Global average output may not be reduced by climate change if technologies like automation continue to reduce the cost of production. I'm sure that in 2070 whole factories will be automated. That's in no way inconsistent with billions of people being killed or having their lives drastically reduced by climate change, not to mention the loss of most non-human life and the risk of civilization-ending feedback loops. A forecast of average income in isolation is essentially meaningless.
- VikingVista VikingVista Sep 28, 2019
  
  The "global average output" reduction reported by the IPCC is not an absolute amount relative to today, but is instead a cost on top of the much higher output that the IPCC expects in the future. I.e., the IPCC is not necessarily predicting global recession. It is not unreasonable to think climate change will impose costs, but it is important to remember that those costs are dwarfed by IPCC's expected continued economic growth. What you suggest may dwarf those costs even further.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Austin Sep 27, 2019

The research project you reference says "The most equitable developments are depicted by SSP1 (the "sustainability" shared socioeconomic pathway) and SSP5 (the "fossil-fueled development" SSP), both featuring a rapid catch-up of the currently poor countries in the world". Please help me understand how your assertion that humanity – including the world’s poorest people – will be much better off in a “fossil-fueled development” scenario.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Austin Sep 27, 2019

This report goes on to say "If financial support for mitigation action in developing countries is provided through an international climate fund, the prevalence of poverty will be slightly reduced at the aggregate level, but the country-specific effect depends on the relative size of funds flowing to beneficiary countries and on their economic structure". Your paraphrasing of the study's finding is incomplete, You seem to have cherry-picked one of the study's findings that supports the premise in your article.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.