I had no idea @BjornLomborg was such a fan of recycling!
His latest @WSJ op-ed repeats the same old arguments…
Here are some of his most glaring errors.
(THREAD)
wsj.com/articles/u-n-i…
His latest @WSJ op-ed repeats the same old arguments…
Here are some of his most glaring errors.
(THREAD)
wsj.com/articles/u-n-i…
❌ "Nordhaus says costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren't worth it" ❌
First up! Before specifics, listen to this Nordhaus i/v from a few days ago. Is this a man arguing for slower action on climate change?
"We're doing much less than needs to be…[etc.]"
First up! Before specifics, listen to this Nordhaus i/v from a few days ago. Is this a man arguing for slower action on climate change?
"We're doing much less than needs to be…[etc.]"
(I'm gonna park the Nordhaus stuff for a minute, we'll come back to that)
❌ "IPCC says unmitigated warming would cost 0.2-2% of GDP" ❌
Oh dear. Bjorn's used this classic many times before. IPCC actually says those estimates are based on "many…disputable [assumptions]…[and] do not account for catastrophic changes…"
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment…
Oh dear. Bjorn's used this classic many times before. IPCC actually says those estimates are based on "many…disputable [assumptions]…[and] do not account for catastrophic changes…"
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment…
[The latest IPCC report, out this week, actually does have some estimates of the cost of warming, which, er, don't sound as rosy as Lomborg makes out…
1.5C would cost $54tn to 2100
2C would cost $69tn
Unlike Bjorn it also heavily caveats its numbers]
report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_…
1.5C would cost $54tn to 2100
2C would cost $69tn
Unlike Bjorn it also heavily caveats its numbers]
report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_…
OK, let's go back to Nordhaus (and keep in mind those pesky caveats…) Lomborg says, acc. Nordhaus, the "optimal" level of warming is 6.3F (3.5C).
Prob with his "optimal" pathway is all those "disputable" assumptions mentioned by the IPCC and conveniently not mentioned by Lomborg.
eg
* Future lives worth less than those today (high discounting)
* No irreversible climate "tipping points" eg ice sheet collapse
etc etc etc
eg
* Future lives worth less than those today (high discounting)
* No irreversible climate "tipping points" eg ice sheet collapse
etc etc etc
It's a long list & I could go on, but instead I'll point you towards some much more knowledgeable sources inc on Twitter:
@noahqk
@GernotWagner
@kelleher_
energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/comme…
metasd.com/2018/10/the-no…
@noahqk
@GernotWagner
@kelleher_
energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/comme…
metasd.com/2018/10/the-no…
I'm actually forgetting that we @CarbonBrief wrote a detailed Q&A on the work by Nordhaus and others that tries to compare the costs and benefits of acting to limit climate change…
…it covers many of the caveats and disputable assumptions I mentioned.
carbonbrief.org/qa-social-cost…
…it covers many of the caveats and disputable assumptions I mentioned.
carbonbrief.org/qa-social-cost…
Anyway, just for the record and in case you want to explore further, here is the source of the Nordhaus number cited by Lomborg:
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10…
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10…
It's also worth highlighting the conclusion from that Nordhaus paper.
To paraphrase:
"The future is uncertain so we should have more climate policy, not less."
(Nordhaus also implicitly rejects Lomborg's preferred approach of "Wait and meanwhile just invest in R&D.")
To paraphrase:
"The future is uncertain so we should have more climate policy, not less."
(Nordhaus also implicitly rejects Lomborg's preferred approach of "Wait and meanwhile just invest in R&D.")
Feels like an afterthought at this point, but in classic Lomborg style his WSJ piece has a liberal smattering of other howlers and it feels remiss not to mention at least a few…
❌"Models say fossil fuel use must stop in 4 yrs, to avoid 1.5C"❌
This is complete bunkum. The IPCC special report was actually very specific about what would have to happen to fossil fuel use to stay below 1.5C. We even made a handy chart, attached:
carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ip…
This is complete bunkum. The IPCC special report was actually very specific about what would have to happen to fossil fuel use to stay below 1.5C. We even made a handy chart, attached:
carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ip…
❌ "Fossil fuels are cheaper than green energy" ❌
Yeah, Bjorn's gonna keep wheeling this out even as reality starts to overtake his dearly-held priors. This remains true in a diminishing number of countries. See link / chart for UK latest.
carbonbrief.org/ccc-new-uk-ren…
Yeah, Bjorn's gonna keep wheeling this out even as reality starts to overtake his dearly-held priors. This remains true in a diminishing number of countries. See link / chart for UK latest.
carbonbrief.org/ccc-new-uk-ren…
❌ The @IPCC_CH "urges" leaders to limit warming to 1.5C ❌
Nope. Countries of the world agreed to try & avoid 1.5C. They asked IPCC what it would take to do this, & how the impacts of 1.5C would compare to 2C.
IPCC doesn't tell anyone what to do.
ipcc.ch/news_and_event…
Nope. Countries of the world agreed to try & avoid 1.5C. They asked IPCC what it would take to do this, & how the impacts of 1.5C would compare to 2C.
IPCC doesn't tell anyone what to do.
ipcc.ch/news_and_event…
Honestly, at this point I'm bored so I'm going to stop & direct you to this blog by @ret_ward, which lays bare many other egs of Lomborg being economical with the truth.
As you can see, Bjorn nevertheless reused many of the same points for the WSJ.
lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstit…
/fin
As you can see, Bjorn nevertheless reused many of the same points for the WSJ.
lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstit…
/fin
@ret_ward Here is a coincidental and highly relevant development, which no doubt Bjorn will mention in his next op-ed for the WSJ or Australian…
