According to Bjorn Lomborg, the panic over climate change is costing the world trillions of dollars for policies that will have little impact in the next 50 or 100 years. For example, the European Union's attempt to go halfway towards Net Zero by 2030 will cost approximately a trillion dollars annually, and the net impact will be almost immeasurable by the end of the century. Lomborg explains that the EU and the rich countries only account for a small portion of emissions that will come out in the 21st century, and even though the EU used to be a significant emitter, they will only play a small role in the future. Lomborg argues that we are spending an excessive amount of money on something that will only make a tiny difference, and that could have been spent on other things that would make humanity better.
Lomborg states that the cost-benefit analysis of the EU's policies indicates that it will deliver less than a dollar for every dollar spent, or approximately 30 cents back on the dollar. This is a terrible way to spend money because there are far better ways to spend it. For example, spending money on tuberculosis, education for small kids, or nutrition for children can do 30 to 100 times more good than spending money on climate change policies.
The United States is also considering going Net Zero by 2050, but the models suggest that it could cost between two and four trillion dollars per year by mid-century. If the US went carbon neutral today, it would reduce temperatures by about 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is not to say that some good will not come out of the policy, but it is an enormous amount of money to spend on relatively small benefits.
Lomborg believes that there are other things that we need to consider, such as the fact that energy availability is a geopolitical destabilizer. Uneven access to energy can increase poverty, and if there is a disruption in the system, it can cause vast geopolitical instability. He believes that if we can envision a world where we are no longer dependent on fossil fuels, it would be a world of abundant energy that doesn't come from black rocks or gooey liquids. However, this idea is not factored in the cost-benefit analysis of climate change policies.
In conclusion, Lomborg argues that we are spending trillions of dollars on policies that will have little impact on climate change. Instead, we should be spending the money on things that can make humanity better, such as tuberculosis, education, and nutrition for children. He also suggests that we need to consider the bigger picture of the world of abundant energy that doesn't come from fossil fuels, which would reduce geopolitical instability.
#climatechange #sustainability #netzero
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions by Bjorn Lomborg
Enanced by #chatgpt