Lomborg on the cost and benefits of the Paris Summit

People might like to consider getting some copies of Climate Change: The Facts 2017 to donate one to the local library and another to lend to people who have not yet made up their mind about the issues. It is dedicated to the late Bob Carter who made an outstanding contribution including a paper in the previous Climate Change: The Facts in 2014. He was sacked by the Uni of North Queensland for rocking the boat.

This collection begins with the Peter Ridd paper that triggered his problems with the same university and it ends with a polemic against alarmism from the pen of Clive James. He has been deep into terminal illness for some years although he was still producing at the start of this year.

In between are many other excellent contributions including Bjorn Lomborg “The Impact and Cost of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit with a Focus on US Policies”. The bottom line:

Adopting all promises from 2016-2030 will reduce the temperature in 2010 by 0.05%C…Optimally implemented the foregone economic output is estimated at US$924 billion per year by 2030. What’s more that cost will double to almost US$2 trillion per year if the policies are inefficiently implemented.

The most powerful case against the war on CO2 is to accept some of the premises of the alarmists and show that even by their own standards the emission control policies make no sense in the light of cost/benefit analysis. Bjorn Lomborg can be described as a “lukewarm alarmist” because he considers that warming will cause non-catastrophic problems in the somewhat distant future. Still his cost/benefit analysis points the need to adjust to the change rather than persisting with the current (failing) efforts to achieve a “carbon constrained” future.

If Lomborg’s analysis achieves any significant traction in the policy debate then obviously the proponents of “climate caper” and its many beneficiaries will have a lot of awkward questions to answer. That threat was defused in Australia when the staff and students in several universities blocked a $20 M government offer to set up a Lomborg-style cost/benefit program.

His chapter contains a fascinating analysis of the credibility of the commitments made by nations like China. What can we make of an undertaking to peak emissions in 2030 in view of the difficulty of monitoring? He noted that Chinese statistics are “notoriously opaque” (how surprising) and it seems that they have been burning almost 20% more coal per annum in recent years than we previously thought.

The lowest cost of their promise would be in the order of 2% of GDP and he suggested that it strains credibility to expect China to do so much self-harm. “It is worth noting in passing that in its commitment China also promises to be ‘democratic’ by 2050.” (2015 misprint corrected).

Getting back to the world picture, on the topic of efficient vs inefficient strategies Lomborg calculated that the best (efficient) strategies would cost the world in the order of a trillion per annum by 2030 compared with twice the cost for inefficient strategies. The EU could have switched to gas and improved efficiency for a GDP loss of 0.7% but like most countries to date they picked less efficient emission-reduction measures, namely solar subsidies and biofuels to cost 1.3% of GDP. Germany got into pumped hydro as well but they are getting out because it needs a shipload of spare power some time during the day to do it.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Lomborg on the cost and benefits of the Paris Summit

  1. Genghis

    Yup, and again I will point out that for the last 13 days of April 2018 NEM (East Australian Electricity market) worked at less than 10% of wind capacity for 25% of the time. Further no one asks about the naturally occurring CO2 in Natural Gas fields, like 17-18% CO2 in Yolla Gas in the Bass Basin or the huge Gorgon Gas fields in Western Australia at 11-12% CO2!
    Like to find someone to explain to me just why Australia becoming the largest exporter of Natural Gas our CO2 emissions are falling!

  2. Very good sentiments, but what library would accept such a sacreligious book? I suspect that such a book would be (hopefully) graciously accepted, but then would be unceremoniously binned the moment the donor left the library.

  3. Herodotus

    The shutting out of Lomborg and the shutting out of the Ramsay sponsorship of a faculty devoted to Western Civilisation is starting to look like a pattern of behaviour.
    We knew that universities have been “long marched”, but now the extent of that march is becoming apparent.
    In addition to being hatcheries for leftist young people with useless degrees in various indoctrinated courses, or pre-programmed so-called “journalists”, lawyers and activists, they are now emerging as roadblocks to recovery from the dud schemes that have been visited on us.

  4. Pingback: That Old Time Religion – still costs – 38 South

  5. Percy Popinjay

    In four words only:

    All cost, no benefit.

  6. OldOzzie

    Oops screwed the Link up – is in the body above

  7. Mickfromyhebush

    Herotodus

    They started in the 50″s . Lawyersl.

  8. jupes

    The most powerful case against the war on CO2 is to accept some of the premises of the alarmists and show that even by their own standards the emission control policies make no sense in the light of cost/benefit analysis.

    Yeah nah. If it’s bullshit it should be called out.

    And since when has a lefty ever been swayed by a cost/benefit analysis? The cost doesn’t matter if it’s other peoples money.

  9. JohnA

    bemused #2748324, posted on June 27, 2018, at 4:21 pm

    Very good sentiments, but what library would accept such a sacrilegious book? I suspect that such a book would be (hopefully) graciously accepted, but then would be unceremoniously binned the moment the donor left the library.

    Fair comment.

    How about finding a pollie to make a public presentation? “A significant contribution to the cause of Climate Change”, “A most important source of information on the mechanisms of CO2 in the atmosphere”, “A valuable resource addressing the impact of Climate Change upon the planet” etc., etc., etc. (with thanks to Yul Brinner in The King and I)

    Then the library would be known to have accepted the title, would have to put it on display and make sure it is available for borrowing.

    And it doesn’t matter much if the pollie is for or agin “Climate Change” except that the content should not be divulged to those for it. It would be most important that the speech does not refer to the actual content in detail but to the significance of the book in the current climate (sic).

  10. Gerard

    The objective was always to damage Western economies.

  11. Mark M

    Before a cost/benefit analysis, there should a commonsense analysis.

    – Can a solar panel and/or a wind turbine prevent the climate from changing?

    – Where is the evidence?

  12. Kneel

    “Yeah nah. If it’s bullshit it should be called out.

    And since when has a lefty ever been swayed by a cost/benefit analysis? The cost doesn’t matter if it’s other peoples money.”

    Sure, but look what happened to both the Roger Pielke’s – same as Lombourg. These are people who catagorically CANNOT be called “deniers” – they cite, and base their research on, IPCC scenarios. They don’t “accept” these are true, they simply go through the numbers as presented and consider the implications without any challange to the numbers presented.
    Together these three have shown (in published research in most cases) that:
    IPCC has misled on “extreme weather” issues – reality is the polar opposite of what they suggest, as evidenced by the lit-chur-chur;
    WMO, BoM et al “surface” records are not a reliable indication of the heat content of the atmosphere;
    The cost of the green blobs diversion of funding to their own subsidy farms is an increase in mortality compared to BAU.
    So, basically: They lied. They cheated. They stole based on the lies and cheating. Their solutions cost more, and do more harm to people AND the environment, than BAU.
    But YOU sir, are the denier!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.