web analytics
≡ Menu

 Lomborg: climate change Vs coronavirus?

02.08.19.  “It wasn’t that long ago when much of the global elite had decided conclusively that climate change was our world’s top priority. Then came a sideswiping by a pandemic, of which we have seen only the first wave, along with an equally enormous global recession. It serves as a timely reminder that an alarmism that cultivates one fear over others serves society poorly.”
In the BC era — before coronavirus — the World Health Organisation famously called climate change the “greatest threat to global health in the 21st century”. Even as coronavirus tentacles were already spreading, the glitterati gathered at Davos in January and declared climate accounted for all the long-term biggest risks to the world. The media happily recounted a steady stream of catastrophic climate scenarios. Campaigners found climate dystopias excellent for fundraising.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg for News Corp

Swamped by rising climate of alarm

Politicians in search of votes promised to save us from climate harm with ever-stricter emission regulations.
Not surprisingly, these persistent scare stories have convinced many that the climatic end of the world is nigh. One survey of 28 countries shows that almost half of all people believe climate change will likely lead to the extinction of the human race.
Global warming is a real challenge and a problem we need to tackle. But the alarmism makes it difficult for us to think smartly about climate solutions, and it swamps our attention away from the many other important global issues.
Even before COVID-19, this panic was vastly exaggerated. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself points out that if we try to measure all the negative impacts from climate change, it would be equivalent to reducing the average person’s income in the 2070s by just 0.2 to 2 per cent. And this is from a base whereby the UN expects the average person in the 2070s to have an income 363 per cent higher than today’s income. So even the worst outcome of global warming will mean that we will be “only” 356 per cent richer than today. That is a problem but not the end of the world.
Take the very real problem of sea-level rise. This is often portrayed in near-apocalyptic terms. We recently have been treated to widespread reports that oceans could end up rising much more than what the IPCC tells us, displacing an astonishing 187 million people. Bloomberg News declared that coastal cities such as Miami might “drown in 80 years”.
In reality, the 187 million number assumes that for the next 80 years nobody in the world will do anything to deal with the rising waters.
In real life, of course, nations adapt. The study that gave the 187 million number also shows that with adaptation, the number of people who have to move by the end of the century is just 305,000. The number that made it around the world was exaggerated 600 times. For context, 305,000 people moving during the next 80 years is less than half the number of people who move out of California each year.
Moreover, the exclusive focus on climate change neglects that the world faces many other large challenges that we can engage in so much more effectively. Indeed, this is also what the vast majority of the world’s poor tell us to focus on.
When the UN asked almost 10 million people what they regarded as the world’s top priorities, the vast majority — especially from the world’s poor — emphasised better education, healthcare, jobs, government and nutrition. Climate ranked 16th out of 16 priorities — right after phone and internet access.
There is an amazing array of effective solutions to many of the world’s ills. Nutrition is one of the world’s top priorities, and for good reason.
Effective nutrition in the first two years of a child’s life helps develop the brain, improves the educational impact and results in dramatically better-skilled adults. While nutrition costs only $US100 ($140) per child, it boosts the average child’s lifetime income by $US4500 in today’s money.
The same can be said for many health interventions. While we obviously need to continue to address the pandemic, let’s remember that the world’s leading infectious-disease killer is still tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is often overlooked, but it mostly kills adults in their prime and leaves children without parents.
Yet for only $US6bn a year the world could save nearly 1.6 million people from dying annually. When my think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, provided an analysis for philanthropist Bill Gates, he called the money he devoted to such disease prevention the “best investment I’ve ever made”.
Of course, we still need to address climate. Research shows that the most effective way is to dramatically increase investment in green research and development. This could reduce the price of green energy below the costs of fossil fuels and make everyone switch. Because this would also be much cheaper than our ineffective policies that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in subsidies for the current generation of ineffective renewables and in lost economic growth from more expensive energy, our budgets would be able to tackle a much wider range of the top issues.
When false climate alarm makes us insist on invoking climate at every turn, we end up helping the world only a little at very high cost. We can — and must — do more, better and faster.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his new book, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Ex ADF 02/08/2020, 7:29 am

    This calls for more input by that moonfaced Scandinavian kid! She has all the answers!!

    • luk1955 02/08/2020, 10:58 am

      She makes me want to puke all over her picture.

Leave a Comment