Thanks Antonio. My impression is that calling Lomborg a "notorious
denier" is generally used as a political stratagem by those who wish
to focus only on the decarbonisation of the world economy as the sole
permissible response to global warming.
Lomborg may be wrong about the risk analysis of climate change, but
that does not make him a climate denier. Such false labels are a way
to ignore and deflect Lomborg's factual analysis of the gross
inadequacy and delinquency of the Paris Accord, and of the need to
shift climate policy from subsidy to R&D.
On your comment that Lomborg has helped to delay action, it is a good
thing to delay an overhasty switch to renewable energy when this
proposed switch is based on inaccurate claims about cost, subsidy,
reliability and climate impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Antonio Donato Nobre <anobr...@gmail.com>
*To:* rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
*Cc:* Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, 15 July 2018, 23:05
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
Agree with Leon. As a notorious denier, Bjorn Lomborg has caused
massive damage to civilization as he helped to delay action. Not a
good source now for wisdom.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:32 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
Interesting article copied below is published today
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theaustralian.com.au_news_inquirer_abbott-2Dis-2Dright-2Dparis-2Dclimate-2Dtreaty-2Dfails-2Dto-2Dfight-2Dglobal-2Dwarming_news-2Dstory_c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e593b&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=4oBfxjWM06pEXlcjH2TLZEbU_EEWQeQfrjv4_WYMI3c&e=>
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 related 2017 article
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.project-2Dsyndicate.org_commentary_geoengineering-2Dclimate-2Dchange-2Dby-2Dbjorn-2Dlomborg-2D2017-2D01&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=RTOSKUO1vnbt5fKB57BysWVIup9-6FWMAvfW_P-bLVQ&e=>,
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theaustralian.com.au_author_Bjorn-2BLomborg&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=6HE-r0WGou13zoEz_6z70WqfOxg32qh7sFT-INFNSRc&e=>*
https://www.theaustralian.com. au/news/inquirer/abbott-is-
right-paris-climate-treaty- fails-to-fight-global-warming/
news-story/ c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e59 3b
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theaustralian.com.au_news_inquirer_abbott-2Dis-2Dright-2Dparis-2Dclimate-2Dtreaty-2Dfails-2Dto-2Dfight-2Dglobal-2Dwarming_news-2Dstory_c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e593b&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=4oBfxjWM06pEXlcjH2TLZEbU_EEWQeQfrjv4_WYMI3c&e=>
(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 to geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.
com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/
group/geoengineering
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=7xO3wN5YBjEwyjh-0EnSi4MEXWeTzi22_grJd1js100&e=>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=OCJIg6qy98Wf0BIbsO2aAN8mEpwafy-RcgvfcJOuZW8&e=>.
--
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
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=7xO3wN5YBjEwyjh-0EnSi4MEXWeTzi22_grJd1js100&e=>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=1IQ0IaWaDENNkRlON1O4PA&m=hr5amJC8co6zt-Ow-PtP53-iVYDYubxH2MglcNsipMg&s=OCJIg6qy98Wf0BIbsO2aAN8mEpwafy-RcgvfcJOuZW8&e=>.
