Infonugget: Lomborg strikes again

Bjorn Lomborg has struck again, this time with yet another “look at me” attempt at being contrarian, Two Cheers for China’s Climate Obstruction:

The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century.

In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent.

Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over.

Consider the fact that 97 percent of China’s energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China’s energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures.

The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government’s opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming.

Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter.

In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century.

…

It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development.

A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate.

Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future.

We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their “impossible resistance” with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective.

Translation: China is being myopic, and it’s actually a good thing because had they cooperated we would have addressed the climate change mess by using a solution I (meaning Lomborg) don’t like.

I would also point out the subtle assumption Lomborg makes, and that’s the one of timing. He not only assumes that simply pouring money into research and development will create new and cheaper technologies, but that they will be effective enough and cheap enough to be adopted, and this entire process will happen quickly enough. The evidence for this, in light of the onslaught of “it’s worse than we thought” news items is… where, exactly?

And notice how he blithely hand waves away the potential for doing good via “ineffective global carbon cuts”. This is based on what science…?

For much more than you probably want to read about Lomborg’s public battles of such issues, see Wikipedia: Bjørn Lomborg