Get 12 weeks of The Spectator in print and online for just £12.

And we'll give you a £20, £20,000, Amazon Give Voucher, absolutely free.

Go to spectator.com.uk forward slash voucher.

Hello and welcome to Spectator Sounds. I'm Kate Andrews. Today I'm joined by Bjorn

Longborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, an author of False Alarm, and Matt Ridley,

conservative peer, journalist, and author of How Innovation Works. Over three weeks, this mini

podcast series is discussing and challenging

their perspectives on the best way to tackle climate change. In today's episode, the last of the series,

we're talking about perceived trade-offs when it comes to tackling climate change, including

financial costs, as well as other initiatives or problems that could go overlooked as the world turns

its attention to environmentalism.

Bjorn, you've previously framed our attempts to tackle climate change as a trade-off in some way

between tackling many other issues around the world.

But why shouldn't climate change be at the top of the list?

So climate change, like all other problems, should be evaluated in how much can we help

humanity in the world for how much resources we put in?

Because clearly, we have almost infinite needs, but we don't have infinite resources.

So let's just remember, while everybody talks a lot about the fact that we have climate change,

some of the biggest problems in the world is still that tuberculosis kills almost 2 million

people each year, much more than it's been killed by COVID so far.

It's the world's leading infectious disease killer, and we could fix it very easily.

Obviously, there's still malaria and HIV. There's the fact that almost 800, killer, and we could fix it very easily. Obviously, there's still malaria and

...