In an interview with flagship German business daily Handelsblatt here, Danish economist Björn Lomborg warned of the “inefficiency in climate protection” and says Germany is a “deterrent example” in this respect.
“Gigantic costs”
He told the Handelsblatt that the once highly praised “Energiewende” was “poorly implemented” and that the costs will be “gigantic.”
“Germany, with its promotion of renewable energies, is a particularly deterrent example in this respect. Such mismanagement adds up to gigantic additional costs,” said Lomborg.
Great doubts concerning costs
The high profile Danish economist also told the Handelsblatt that the goal of climate neutrality makes no economic sense, saying: “That is easy to say, but extremely difficult to implement. I have great doubts as to whether all these states will be able to answer the question of what it will cost in the end.”
Lomborg also told the Handelsblatt that bans would be counterproductive and that consumers will simply spend the money they save by not flying on other CO2-causing products. “The only sure way to reduce CO2 emissions is to make people poor.”
Technology is the key
Lomborg says that he supports a CO2 tax over the short-term to reduce CO2 emissions but that ultimately the only way will be through improved technology and not political measures. “We need innovations to combat climate change. That must be our first priority. […] The key then is innovation.”
Citizens will rise up against bans
Lomborg says technical innovation is better than demanding people pay 16% of GDP on climate protection. “People don’t want that. They will then vote for politicians like Trump or Bolsonaro.”
Only one percent comes from wind and sun
When it comes to wind and sun as a supply of energy, Lomborg says that ultimately the huge costs will have to be correctly taken into account and warns that they are far from being a cheap supply.
“You have to see the cost of the whole system. […] And we should not lose sight of the dimensions: According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), one percent of global energy demand is currently covered by wind and sun, while the IEA estimates that it will be about four percent by 2040,” Lomborg told the Handelsblatt.
Going it alone, shifting emissions “crazy”
And the Danish economist warns against Europe going it alone on CO2 reductions. If it does, “then the energy-intensive industry will disappear in the direction of the USA or Asia. It is crazy to drive the energy-intensive industry out of Europe and shift emissions to other regions of the world.”
Education and development
Lomborg also told the Handelsblatt that the best way to protect developing countries from climate change is to invest in their education and health care – so that they will be able to “get themselves out of sheet metal huts.” Storms wreak far greater damage on impoverished societies than in developed ones.
“If we lead people out of poverty, they will become less vulnerable to the consequences of climate change and to many other challenges. Yes, we must fight climate change, but we must do it intelligently,” said Lomborg.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Yes that’s what Europe needs …more poor people .
Get them so poor they will have to chose between food or heat and we all know what happens next .
Such an elegant way to have the poor and elderly exit .
If ISIS wiped out 10 ,000 people a year in the UK it’s a safe bet MSM might comment . But fuel poverty deaths in the 10’s of thousands … crickets
dead silence . Way to go Guardian , BBC etc .great job .
Lomborg has apparently broken down from the relentless loud noise of the global warming campaign. He is probably correct that an impoverished population will result in an overall reduction of human CO2 output, and I don’t think that he is advocating making everybody poor to achieve that. But I am surprised to see him now siding with the assumption that climate change is a fact of modern life on Earth. Lomborg, author of a booked titled “Cool It” seemed to be doubtful that global warming was real.
Lomborg Has always believed in Climate Change he just never signed on to the human origins of that change or the economic control marxists are pushing for.
Lomborg likes to ride the middle . As I understand him he says adapt .
Of course climate changes and it even warms before it cools . Shocking isn’t .
The Climate Change brand is used as a basket to collect every environment concern or fear into one convenient package . Global warming was too narrow a term and the gross exaggeration too easy to disprove . Climate Change is like a political corral too . Rounding up the anti straw people , the population exterminator cheerleaders , the communist sypathizers , anti fossil fuel hypocrites etc etc .
The best way to reduce it back to its roots is to strip away the real issues that
are there . Garbage in the oceans …well come up with a plan using existing resources mainly to clean it up .
The population bogey man . Again the fewer the facts the stronger the opinions . Population numbers overall are leveling out and certainly in advanced economies it drops . How is Japan going to function with a declining population ?
Reducing people that are already poor to dung burners is not a winning strategy .
If you can justify banning straws you can justify banning lots of things .
How do you defend the newspaper business in the electronic age ? You can’t .
This article is an example of how things have significantly changed in the past five to ten years. In the past environmental activists were saying and probably actually believed that going to renewables would result in an economic boom and prosperity. I read one article that said the US needed to get started on the massive use of renewable energy otherwise we would be left behind as such energy resulted in an economic boom in Europe. Today it is widely acknowledged that reducing emissions harms the economy, middle class, and poor families. Who ever is pulling the Pope’s strings acknowledge that where the Pope’s speech advocated simpler life styles to fight climate change.
If climate change were a real problem the use of technology would be important. If only we had a way to harness the high energy that results from splitting the atom.
Fusion?
Currently, our nuclear energy involves splitting atoms.
I was being cynical. I was referring to fission, our current form of nuclear power. I should mention again that if California or Germany had spent as much on nuclear power as they have renewables, both would have emission free electrical grids.
I should’ve considered that before I asked. It was in the morning after the night before.
Green energy is really various pieces of hardware that harness the Sun. Wind, hydro and solar all derive their potential energy from the Sun. The Sun is a big ball of fusion that started with hydrogen. What if all the capital wasted on green energy was, instead, invested in nuclear fusion research? We’d be closer to success. Of course, the radical Left doesn’t want anything that would continue humanity’s proliferation.
Do we really want to drag the power of the sun durectly to and place the soutce of its power on the earth? Bad idea. Humansare too fallible. No controls will be infallible. Nuclear power has shown us its a very bad idea. Fukashima is still pouring out radioactive waste
During the early days of the Manhattan Project, some worried that the reaction would ignite nitrogen and that there’d be no stopping it. We’re still here and so are the reactors that tame fission. Very easy to conjure up excuses .