Hello Bob,thanks very much for sharing your analysis. I agree with you on
Lomborg’s risk analysis, but you are toopositive about the Paris Accord.
WhileLomborg oversimplifies the situation for a popular audience, his key
messagethat emission reduction is marginal to climate stability is one that
deservesdispassionate respectful discussion.
For example, it seems unproven for you to describe as“discredited” his “claim
that climate change can be managed solely through anincrease in spending on
research and development on green energy, and withoutany other policy measures,
such as international targets for reducing emissionsof greenhouse gases.”
Lets look at the facts. Business as usual projects emissions in 2030 of 60 GT
CO2e, while theParis Accord if fully implemented would cut that by 10% to about
55 GT. And meanwhile, the Paris Accord shunts to thelatter half of the century
any need to implement geoengineering solutions whichcould achieve results
orders of magnitude bigger and cheaper. The Paris strategy is a war on coal.
But despite best efforts, its advocates can’tconceal that all the
intergovernmental effort could only come up with a resultthat completely fails
to deliver climate stability. So Lomborg’s call for a different
approach,especially if R&D extends beyond ‘green energy’ to include
geoengineering, looksreasonable. It seems the argumentagainst his view boils
down to the spurious moral hazard theory thatgeoengineering gives succour to
the enemy in the war on coal.
I disagreewith your argument that Lomborg’s claim is “simply untrue” that the
ParisAgreement "includes the fiction that pledges under the agreement will
somehowkeep the planet’s temperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C.” Here we face
the discrepancy between theactual text of the agreement and how it is
presented. The UNPress Release announcing signatures of the Paris Agreement
stated “countriesagreed to limit global temperature rise to well below 2
degrees Celsius.” That is the main Paris headline in termsof the popular
impression of what wasagreed. Your point seems to be that thiskey UN claim is
actually a lie, but Lomborg can hardly be blamed for citingsuch evidence as
part of the fictional nature of the Paris Agreement.
Unfortunately, all the claims about “progression over time” areequally
nonsensical fictional spin. Theonly progress since the heady days of Paris is
backwards, as this 2017review in the New York Times illustrates.
We could debate the meaning of “agreed”, but it seems to mereasonable to
restrict it to firm pledges rather than vague assurances. The supposedly firm
pledges, which are already offtrack, were for a 10% global emission cut by
2030. Itseems rather heroic for anyone to imagine that politics will
miraculouslychange gear enabling a different trajectory after that, while still
using thesame methods of government decarbonisation agreement.
It really is like banging your head against a brick wall for the UN to say
“thepledges on emissions will need to increase in ambition in order to achieve
thegoal.” That is a physical and politicalimpossibility. Far better to just
abandon the failed decarbonisation agenda,with all its conflict against
capitalism, and shift instead to a ManhattanProject scale focus on removing
carbon from the air and sea. If the world can remove twenty cubickilometres of
carbon per year then climate restoration and fossil fuel use canbe compatible.
While Paris struggles toremove 5 GT of CO2e, Carbon Dioxide Removal, together
with emergency SolarRadiation Management, could remove 50 GT per year, making
the decarbonisation agendaentirely marginal to climate stability.
Thanks for mentioning that “the intended nationally determinedcontributions do
not fall within least-cost 2˚C scenarios but rather lead to aprojected level of
55 gigatonnes in 2030.” It should make people wonder why the UN press release I
quoted above wasso misleading.
It is entirely unscientific for the IPCC to claim that “muchgreater emission
reduction efforts will be required … to hold the increase …below 2˚C.” My
impression is that theclimate community has assumed that the actual settled
science on climate changealso implies that the science is settled on what to do
about it. Doubling down on the failed politicalstrategy of emission reduction
is a guarantee for climate crisis. What Lomborg is rightly saying is that
thestrategy needs to change.
Regarding the Royal Society paperyou linked on Pathwayslimiting warming to
1.5°C: a tale of turning around in no time? I think Lomborg’s point was that
withoutcarbon removal this target is impossible, as the paper also implies with
itsfantastic projections in fossil fuel cuts that would be required. The paper
also seems hopelessly unambitiouswith its call for 10GT of annual CO2 removal
by 2050. Much bigger and faster removal is possible,but only if we focus on
the oceans, which the climate community seems loath todo.
I see you have been engaged in a lively debate with Lomborg, forexample with
his replyto your earlier comments. To my reading,you both have some very good
points mixed in with some dubious ones. It all raises central climatepolicy
problems in a practical way. Thechallenge should be to create a focus on the
big strategic problem of stoppingglobal warming as the primary security threat
facing our planet. Neither decarbonisation nor denial engagewith that problem,
so Lomborg is correct at the strategic level that implementinggeoengineering
solutions is urgent.
Robert Tulip
From: "Ward,RE" <r.e.w...@lse.ac.uk>
To: "'geoengineering@googlegroups.com'" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 16 July 2018, 20:33
Subject: RE: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
#yiv3621482841 #yiv3621482841 -- _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3621482841
#yiv3621482841 p.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841
li.yiv3621482841MsoNormal, #yiv3621482841 div.yiv3621482841MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
a:link, #yiv3621482841 span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 a:visited, #yiv3621482841
span.yiv3621482841MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3621482841 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv3621482841
span.yiv3621482841EmailStyle18 {color:#44546A;}#yiv3621482841
.yiv3621482841MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3621482841
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv3621482841
div.yiv3621482841WordSection1 {}#yiv3621482841 I am afraid that the Lomborg
article suffers from multiple serious
defects:http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-australian-promotes-bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-propaganda/
Bob Ward Policy and Communications Director Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment London School of Economics and
Political Science Houghton Street London UK WC2A 2AE Tel. +44 (0) 20 7107
5413 Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346 Web:http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham Twitter:
@ret_ward From: 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
Sent: 14 July 2018 13:32
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Lomborg on Paris Interesting article copied below is
published today in The Australian. I disagree with Lomborg’s argument that
“The best estimates show global warming has roughly a zero net cost to
humanity.” This and related comments unduly discount the risks of climate
tipping points of medium probability but high impact. However, Lomborg’s
critique of the Paris Accord is spot on, and his call for a shift in energy
policy from subsidies to technology R&D should make him an important ally of
the geoengineering community. Lomborg makes the following pertinent
comments: · The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it
would require the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by
2021. · even if completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow
and every nation doing every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1
per cent of progress towards the “easier” target of 2C. · “no major
advanced industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. (Nature) ·
each dollar spent on EU climate policies will generate a total long-term
climate benefit of 3c · Green energy is not yet ready to compete with
fossil fuels, so forcing economies to switch means slowing them down. ·
More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solar and wind
energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of the globe’s
energy needs. · The Paris Agreement is not the right answer but a
solution is needed. · Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen
Consensus on Climate found we shouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold
increase, to reach at least $100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than
the proposed Paris cuts and it would actually have the prospect of making a
significant impact on temperature rises. It would do so without choking
economic growth, which continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. ·
Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energy
eventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not making
fossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers. · In a related2017
article, Lomborg says the case for geoengineering research is compelling.
Here is the article text. Abbott is right: Paris climate treaty fails to
fight global warming Most signatories to the Paris Agreement are failing to
meet their emissions reduction obligations. · The Australian, July 14,
2018 · BJORN LOMBORG
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/abbott-is-right-paris-climate-treaty-fails-to-fight-global-warming/news-story/c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e593b
(paywall) Political language on climate change often amounts to empty
puffery: bold promises that are not going to be delivered and aspirational
rhetoric that proves impossible to achieve. It is therefore remarkable that
Tony Abbott has acknowledged Australia would not have signed the Paris
Agreement if he had known in 2015 that the US would withdraw, and that trying
to reach national targets would damage the Australian economy. Internationally,
very few politicians have admitted the inherent failings of the Paris treaty,
but the truth is that it was always oversold. This begins with the treaty
itself, which includes the fiction that pledges under the agreement will
somehow keep the planet’s temperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C. The 1.5C target
is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it would require nothing less than
the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by February 7, 2021.
Given our reliance on fossil fuels, that would mean we stop cooling and heating
our homes, stop all air travel, and the world’s farmers stop making half the
world’s food, produced with fertiliser almost exclusively made from fossil
fuels. The list goes on. As for the less stringent 2C target, keeping the
global temperature rise below that requires a reduction in emissions during
this century of almost 6000 billion tonnes. The UN body that oversees the Paris
Agreement has estimated that even if every single country (including the US)
were to achieve every national promise by 2030, the total greenhouse gas cut
would be equivalent to just 60 billion tonnes of CO2. This means that even if
completely successful, with the US rejoining tomorrow and every nation doing
every single thing promised, the Paris treaty makes 1 per cent of progress
towards the “easier” target of 2C. Not only is the treaty not binding, but even
binding agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol did not hinder countries such as
Canada from promising to cut emissions by 6 per cent and instead increasing
them by 24 per cent. In Paris, many governments made vows they have not lived
up to because they are finding — like Australia — that there are costs to doing
so. In fact, research last year in Nature found that “no major advanced
industrialised country is on track to meet its pledges”. Few nations are
forthcoming about their failures, but we know the EU vowed to cut emissions to
40 per cent below its 1990 level by 2030, but as of last year had enacted
policies that would reduce them by 19 per cent. Even including “pledged”
policies, the EU will make it to less than 30 per cent. And the Nature study
says, “Japan promised cuts in emissions to match those of its peers, but
meeting the goals will cost more than the country is willing to pay.” It would
be wrong to imagine that the US was on track before Donald Trump quit the Paris
Agreement. Barack Obama promised to cut US emissions to 18 per cent below 1990
levels by 2025 but never backed this with sufficient legislation, introducing
policies that were set to achieve at most a 7 per cent reduction. And poorer
nations remain on target only because they promised so little. While
politicians enjoy rhetoric about saving the planet, very few are willing to
implement policies that will achieve meaningful temperature cuts. Why? Because
the costs of doing so through carbon cuts are high and the benefits quite
small. That doesn’t fit with what many people believe: we often are told global
warming is catastrophically costly and that solutions are cheap or beneficial.
It pays to look at the evidence. The best estimates show global warming has
roughly a zero net cost to humanity. The most pessimistic study finds a cost of
0.3 per cent of gross domestic product, while the most optimistic suggests a
net benefit of 2.3 per cent. We usually hear only about the (real) problems of
global warming, such as increased heatwaves, cooling costs and heat deaths. But
we rarely hear that global warming will reduce extreme cold, heating costs, and
the number of deaths caused by the cold (which right now outweigh heat deaths
by seven to one). As global warming progresses, the adverse effects generally
will increase while the positive effects will diminish, making a net negative
for humanity. But the outcome is not the doomsday suggested by Hollywood. The
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that without any climate
policy, the impacts in about a half-century will be equivalent to a loss of 0.2
per cent to 2 per cent of global GDP. That is similar to one recession across
the next five decades: a problem but by no means the end of the world. If we
don’t act, the damage will reach 3 per cent to 4 per cent early next century —
a significant impact, but still nowhere near catastrophic in a world where
climate models expect the average inhabitant to be 500 per cent richer. This
means climate policy can create, at most, benefits worth 3 per cent to 4 per
cent of global GDP in 100 years. Any realistic policy will achieve only a
fraction of this. The Paris treaty, fully implemented, would achieve
one-hundredth of the reduction to 2C (a level at which there are still
significant impacts), and hence achieve benefits worth perhaps only one-tenth
of 1 per cent of global GDP 100 years from now. The policy costs, often
downplayed, can be vast. The EU is widely lauded by environmentalists for its
bold carbon cut promises. Taking into account the total cost to the economy,
the EU’s bill for cutting 20 per cent by 2020 runs to about €209 billion
($328.5bn). Its much more ambitious policy of cutting emissions by 40 per cent
by 2030 will likely cost €574bn a year. Yet the benefit will be vanishingly
small: my peer-reviewed, published analysis shows the EU’s Paris promises for
2030, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to
throughout this entire century, would reduce global temperatures by 0.053C by
2100. A peer-reviewed study has shown each dollar spent on EU climate policies
will generate a total long-term climate benefit of 3c. Looking further ahead,
the EU has promised an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. The biggest study from
Stanford University’s Energy Modelling Forum has used the world’s top models to
show that the average expected cost to the EU if all policies were perfectly
co-ordinated and perfectly efficiently implemented would be €2.9 trillion a
year — or 11.9 per cent of the EU’s total GDP by 2050. That is more than all
the 28 EU states spend on education, recreation, health, housing, environment,
police and defence. Moreover, climate policies are rarely perfectly designed
and effectively implemented. Typically, in real life that means doubling their
cost, meaning the EU’s plan of cutting 80 per cent could reach a fantastical
one-quarter of the entire EU GDP. Unsurprisingly, it is not a good idea to pay
12 per cent to 25 per cent of GDP in the decades ahead to avoid a fraction of a
3 per cent to 4 per cent GDP loss in 100 years. Carbon cuts pledged in the
Paris Agreement put the cart before the horse. Green energy is not yet ready to
compete with fossil fuels, so forcing economies to switch means slowing them
down. More than $100bn will be spent this year alone on subsidies for solar and
wind energy, yet this technology will meet less than 1 per cent of the globe’s
energy needs. Even by 2040, and even with carbon being taxed, the International
Energy Agency estimates that average coal still will be cheaper than average
solar and wind energy. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s
recent report outlines with refreshing clarity how well-intentioned climate
change policies have hurt energy customers. The ACCC finds that state
governments’ “excessively generous” subsidies for solar photovoltaic systems
have pushed up prices for “all electricity users”. The subsidies “outweighed,
by many multiples, the value” of the PV energy. The Paris Agreement is not the
right answer but a solution is needed. The US’s decision to leave the treaty
without implementing an alternative climate policy is a poor one. On the
sidelines of the Paris treaty came the real opportunity: philanthropist Bill
Gates announced the creation of a green energy innovation fund backed by
private individuals and about 20 governments, including Australia, that will
double global green energy research and development. This should be only the
beginning. Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen Consensus on Climate
found we shouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold increase, to reach at
least $100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than the proposed Paris
cuts and it would actually have the prospect of making a significant impact on
temperature rises. It would do so without choking economic growth, which
continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. Australia should put the
ambition to innovate green energy sources at the heart of its climate policy.
This should not be about subsidising existing inefficient solar panels and wind
turbines but, rather, about investing in feasible technological breakthroughs
that could help solar, wind, fusion, fission, artificial biomass and other
promising technologies to achieve required breakthroughs. We don’t need all of
them to work; just a few would solve the climate problem, while making
low-cost, plentiful energy for the entire world. The knowledge that the Paris
Agreement should not have been signed is perhaps startling, but it’s time to
learn from the treaty’s failings and to ensure future policy decisions are
grounded in economic reality. Fixing climate change requires boosting
innovation so green energy eventually will become so cheap it will outcompete
fossil fuels — not making fossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting
professor at the Copenhagen Business School. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
