|
|
|
|
Tiny effect: new research
If every government does everything pledged for the Paris climate conference by 2030, it will reduce global temperature increases less than 0.05°C by 2100, a new peer-reviewed research paper by Dr. Lomborg finds. Even if promised reductions were continued for the following 70 years and there was no “CO2 leakageâ€, the reduction in temperature increases will be just 0.17°C by 2100.
Read an overview of the research at lomborg.com. The paper was covered by global media including, e.g. The Times (UK), The Australian, Reuters, Reason (USA), El Telegrafo (Ecuador), Listin Diario (Dominican Republic), Tempi (Italy), Express (UK), and Trends (Belgium).
|
|
Paris Cost: $1-2 trillion
In The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Lomborg reveals the price tag of pre-Paris climate pledges. Emissions cuts will leave the global economy around $1 trillion short every year for the rest of the century—and that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double.
The analysis in other languages; Svenska Dagbladet (Swedish) and Jyllands-Posten (Danish). The cost of the Paris hot air was also topic in The Hindustan Times.
|
|
What to do Instead of Paris?
In the Boston Globe, Dr. Lomborg outlines a vision for a smart, evidence-based climate policy: devoting 0.2 percent of global GDP to green-energy R&D. This would be significantly cheaper — and much more effective— than our current approach.
While current wind and solar subsidies do 7-13 cents of climate good for every dollar spent, R&D can do $11 of climate good for every dollar spent. for the climate. Focusing on green energy R&D is 100 times better for the climate than current subsidies.
|
|
Pre-judging Paris
Wrapping together his new research on the climate effects of the likely Paris treaty and his new analysis of the costs of carbon-cutting promises, Dr. Lomborg writes in his monthly Project Syndicate column, available in five languages, that our approach to climate change is broken. He explains why the UNFCCC is wrong to argue that Paris will achieve a lot more.
   
|
|
The Economist Adopts Lomborg Approach
In this week's 14-page Climate Paris Summit edition,
The Economist:
- argues primarily for a Lomborg-style, technological response to global warming
- acknowledges, like Lomborg, that a carbon tax is theoretically sensible but politically unfeasible
- argues, like Lomborg, that green energy subsidies are the wrong approach
- observes, like Lomborg, that the current Kyoto/Paris-style solutions don't work
- points out, like Lomborg, the need to refocus on adaptation and investigate geo-engineering
- emphasizes, like Lomborg, that current green energy is 'nice to have' but too inefficient to replace fossil fuels
and, recognizes, like Lomborg, that the world's poor have climate as their last priority
The magazine quotes Dr. Lomborg and Copenhagen Consensus on geo-engineering, the need for poor countries to use fossil fuels, and the ineffectiveness of today's green energy. A must-read for every Paris delegate.
|
|
50,000 already gets it
Lomborg posts commentaries, news and graphs on LinkedIn, follow him as LinkedInfluencer here.
|
|
Watch: UN's Global Goals
Dr. Lomborg discusses the UN's Global Goals for Sustainable Development with Foreign Affairs Editor Gideon Rose. The short version: Global Goals need to be much more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
