Bjorn Lomborg has a consistent track record of misrepresenting scientific and 
economic evidence, of downplaying the risks of climate change and of 
overstating the limitations of current low-carbon technologies. He does not 
publish his views in peer-reviewed journals and never acknowledges his errors. 
Trying to use Lomborg’s arguments to boost the case for geoengineering does not 
seem very wise.

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Jul 2018, at 19:49, Maribeth Milner 
<mmiln...@unl.edu<mailto:mmiln...@unl.edu>> wrote:


I remembered hearing Lomberg's name in the context of climate denying so I 
looked him up at Source Watch
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bjorn_Lomborg

Of course... any new work needs to be properly evaluated, but knowing his 
history can be useful.

On 7/15/2018 9:22 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
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><mailto:anobr...@gmail.com>
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au<mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto: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=>.


--
Maribeth Milner 377G Plant Science 402-472-0503

--
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.
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.

Reply via email to