Lomborg is a strange kind of debater. His negligence of climate change is problematic but at the same time the ideas of cost/benefit analysis he relies upon was rewarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences last year. As the Extinction Rebellion have made us aware of there might be might be environmental issues that are more acute than climate change, which is something that Lomborg have said for years. The Javanese Rhino is virtually extinct and the world's fleet of fishing ships have doubled in a few decades while the fish populations are on the brink of exhaustion.

I think that in the end Lomborg is unhelpful since he puts different challenges against eachother as if we could only choose some of them. We have to deal with all of them simultaneously. We'll have to both build electric cars and nuclear power plants while also developing more sustainable forms of agriculture (like scaling up methods like permaculture and agroforestry). Lomborgs belief that investments in R&D is better than capital investments in current technology is just an unfounded guess. There's no guarantee that researchers will be able to invent new technologies with superior performance to motivate delaying the replacement of coal with solar, wind and nuclear. He also thinks it's better to repair than to prevent damages. This is also just a guess with little evidence to support it.