Thanks Bob, Maribeth and Steve for your replies.
Bob, since you have engaged with Lomborg on his peer reviewed article at Global
Policy, Impact of Current Climate Proposals, which he constantly references in
his popular newspaper articles, it is surprising that you state he does not
publish his view in peer-reviewed journals. My reading of that article is that
his critique of the Paris Accord is completely correct. I agree with you that
Lomborg overstates the limitations of renewable energy, but that is possibly a
reasonable political response to the widespread exaggeration of the climate
benefits of decarbonisation by renewable advocates.
Maribeth, as Steve noted, relying on the Sourcewatch link that you provided is
ad hominem fallacious reasoning, 'playing the man not the ball'. The obvious
bias reveals political rather than scientific motives on the part of the
Sourcewatch authors. Their article does not engage with Lomborg's critique of
the Paris Accord, which is the question at issue here.
It was interesting to see that Sourcewatch article quote Ken Caldeira, "If
emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal
with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly". While
that is true for Solar Radiation Management, it is not clear for Carbon Dioxide
Removal.
The sociology of climate change is well illustrated by responses to Lomborg,
who is widely seen by climate activists as beneath contempt, while his factual
analysis is ignored. This failure of engagement is a source of political
oxygen for the climate denial movement.
Robert Tulip
From: "Ward,RE" <r.e.w...@lse.ac.uk>
To: "mmiln...@unl.edu" <mmiln...@unl.edu>
Cc: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018, 8:14
Subject: Re: [geo] Lomborg on Paris
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> 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>
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> wrote:
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 warmingMost 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/
c983e326b92e5bd37962e3d7dc3e59 3b (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+unsubscribe@ 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
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.
--
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
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.
