Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change

Exclusive 'Sceptical environmentalist' and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world
Juliette Jowit, guardian.co.uk 30 Aug 10;

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.

His declaration about the importance of action on climate change comes at a crucial point in the debate, with international efforts to agree a global deal on emissions stalled amid a resurgence in scepticism caused by rows over the reliability of the scientific evidence for global warming.

The fallout from those rows continued yesterday when Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came under new pressure to step down after an independent review of the panel's work called for tighter term limits for its senior executives and greater transparency in its workings. The IPCC has come under fire in recent months following revelations of inaccuracies in the last assessment of global warming, provided to governments in 2007 – for which it won the Nobel peace prize with former the US vice-president Al Gore. The mistakes, including a claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, prompted a review of the IPCC's processes and procedures by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an organisation of world science bodies.

The IAC said the IPCC needed to be as transparent as possible in how it worked, how it selected people to participate in assessments and its choice of scientific information to assess.

Although Pachauri once compared Lomborg to Hitler, he has now given an unlikely endorsement to the new book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change. In a quote for the launch, Pachauri said: "This book provides not only a reservoir of information on the reality of human-induced climate change, but raises vital questions and examines viable options on what can be done."

Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

But he said the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project, in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/Aids. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, "so it wouldn't end up at the bottom".

The difference was made by examining not just the dominant international policy to cut carbon emissions, but also seven other "solutions" including more investment in technology, climate engineering, and planting more trees and reducing soot and methane, also significant contributors to climate change, said Lomborg.

"If the world is going to spend hundreds of millions to treat climate, where could you get the most bang for your buck?" was the question posed, he added.After the analyses, five economists were asked to rank the 15 possible policies which emerged. Current policies to cut carbon emissions through taxes - of which Lomborg has long been critical - were ranked largely at the bottom of four of the lists. At the top were more direct public investment in research and development rather than spending money on low carbon energy now, and climate engineering.

Lomborg acknowledged trust was a problem when committing to long term R&D, but said politicians were already reneging on promises to cut emissions, and spending on R&D would be easier to monitor. Although many believe private companies are better at R&D than governments, Lomborg said low carbon energy was a special case comparable to massive public investment in computers from the 1950s, which later precpitated the commercial IT revolution.

Lomborg also admitted climate engineering could cause "really bad stuff" to happen, but argued if it could be a cheap and quick way to reduce the worst impacts of climate change and thus there was an "obligation to at least look at it".

He added: "This is not about 'we have all got to live with less, wear hair-shirts and cut our carbon emissions'. It's about technologies, about realising there's a vast array of solutions."

Despite his change of tack, however, Lomborg is likely to continue to have trenchant critics. Writing for today's Guardian, Howard Friel, author of the book The Lomborg Deception, said: "If Lomborg were really looking for smart solutions, he would push for an end to perpetual and brutal war, which diverts scarce resources from nearly everything that Lomborg legitimately says needs more money."

Green groups cautiously welcome Bjørn Lomborg's call for $100bn climate fund
'Sceptical environmentalist' previously argued that countering climate change should be a low priority for governments
John Vidal, guardian.co.uk 31 Aug 10;

Self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" Bjørn Lomborg's call for a $100bn a year global fund for research into climate change solutions was today given a cautious welcome by some leading green groups and thinktanks, but was dismissed by others as politically naive.

A Greenpeace spokesperson welcomed the conversion but said it had come two decades too late for Lomborg to be taken seriously. "At least it confirms the happy maxim that nobody's wrong all the time, apart from Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail," the spokesperson added.

"It appears that the self-styled sceptical environmentalist is beginning to become less sceptical as he enters middle-age," said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Mike Childs, adding that Lomborg's volte face would come as a "blow to some in the climate sceptics community".

The controversial Danish statistician, who has never denied man's role in global warming but who has provided an intellectual cover for hard-line climate sceptics, has previously argued that countering climate change should be a low priority for governments. But in his new book Smart Solutions to Climate Change he argues that it should now be addressed "as a priority".

"Lomborg has acknowledged the need for public spending on man-made climate change. He is right that wind, wave and solar are the energy industries in the future and need much greater support from governments. A carbon tax to raise funds is undoubtedly part of the solution, but regulation and public spending also have their place," said Childs.

"But he is still dangerously attracted to pursuing the cheapest, more risky geo-engineering solutions, is putting too much faith in future technologies and R&D, and is not giving enough support to the urgent need to reduce current emissions through rapid deployment of existing solutions and behavioural changes."

Instead of being near the bottom of actions governments should take, as Lomborg argued in 2004, his new book proposes a global carbon tax to raise around $250bn a year to fight the effects of rising temperatures and sea levels. The money would be divided between clean energy research and development ($100bn); low cost geo-engineering solutions such as reflecting solar energy back into space ($1bn); and adaptation to the effects of climate change ($50bn). He further suggests $99bn of the $250bn should be held back to spend on traditional development activities such as clean water and better healthcare in poor countries.

Benny Peiser, director of the free market climate change thinktank Global Warming Policy Foundation said his proposals were more sensible than what those being negotiated at the ongoing UN climate talks which are expected to continue into 2011. "I am not surprised. He's been saying more or less the same for years. The [UN] process is not working at all. This is better and more realistic. His proposals are much more sensible than any attempts to convince China and India to stop emitting," he said.

Lomborg's proposals are surprisingly close to those favoured by the governments of industrialised countries who have accepted that $100bn a year should be made available to poor countries to adapt and that there should be a heavy emphasis on research into clean energy. However, the idea of a carbon tax has proved politically unacceptable for many years partly because it is thought to penalise poor countries which depend more on carbon-intensive goods.

"We would agree that at least $250bn should be raised a year to counter climate change," said one developing country analyst who asked not to be named. "But Lomborg seems to be saying that proportionately less money should go to developing countries and more to develop western technology. This looks like being totally unacceptable to most of the world."

Sceptical green urges smart billions to fight warming
Slim Allagui Yahoo News 5 Sep 10;

COPENHAGEN (AFP) – Bjoern Lomborg, the bad boy of the climate debate who has rejected for years "alarmist" prophecies from environmentalists, stresses in a new book the need to invest billions to fight global warming.

In "Smart Solutions to Climate Change," Lomborg lashes out at current policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions but also highlights the need to spend 100 billion dollars a year on intelligent research and green technologies.

By spending billions in a smart way, the world could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century, insists Lomborg, who edited the new book containing proposals from 28 economists -- including three Nobel laureates -- gathered ahead of last year's climate summit in Copenhagen.

This may seem like an about-turn by the self-proclaimed sceptical environmentalist who had earlier said reducing greenhouse gas emissions should not be a priority as long as there are problems like poverty and famine.

But the 45-year-old Dane, with his mop of blond hair and boyish grin, insists he has not shifted positions.

"I am saying what I have always said: that the climate is a real and important, man-made problem, but that we are handling it badly," he told AFP.

Lomborg insists he has never been opposed to fighting climate change, but only to narrowly focused, inefficient projects aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

So why the sudden increased emphasis on the need for investment?

"Now that the international community has decided to invest massive amounts of money in the fight against climate change -- much more than in the past. I have to take a position in this new situation," he says.

"The international community has decided to spend huge amounts to fight global warming, but with very little hope of actually cooling down the planet," he charges, pointing out that "this is why I suggest using the money in a smarter way to protect the environment."

The author of the 2001 book "The Sceptical Environmentalist," who has figured on Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people, maintains he is still a sceptic "towards current solutions aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, and sceptical of those who exaggerate the threat and create a wind of panic."

The preferred "green" policies of today's world leaders, he laments, are like "slashing a sword in the water."

The European Union for instance "dedicates 250 billion dollars (209 billion euros) each year" towards cutting its member states' CO2 output by 20 percent over the next decade.

The result however, Lombor estimates, will only be "a temperature reduction of 0.05 degrees (Celsius) by the end of the century."

Another example of misused funds, according to the Dane, can be found in Germany, which "has invested enormous amounts in solar energy -- some 75 billion dollars -- which is more than any other country."

This, he says, "will slow global warming by a mere seven hours by the end of the 20th century."

"It would be more prudent to spend these funds on development of more powerful solar panels that are less expensive to use than fossil fuels," he insists.

Research and development are pet themes for Lomborg, who is also set to present a new documentary at the Toronto Film Festival this month: "Cool It."

The film, he says, is a kind of sequel to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," involving a lot of travel around the globe to meet people working on new, innovative green energy projects.

Instead of just focusing on reducing emissions, the world should "invest in research and development of green technologies aimed at making them less expensive and accessible to all, and thereby replace (polluting) fossil fuels," he says.

The answer to the planet's woes, Lomborg insists, is to find creative and efficient solutions, like a proposal supported by most of the economists in his new book for a carbon tax that "corresponds to the damages (the gas) causes to the climate: five euros per tonne of CO2."

Doing so, he claims, "would be enough to raise 250 billion dollars around the world to finance research and development of new technologies, and to solve the world's other problems like famine, poverty and third world diseases."

In any case, Lomborg points out that the problem of climate change cannot be "solved until the big CO2 emitting countries, headed by the United States, China and India, transition from oil and coal to renewable energy."

"And this will not happen until we have developed much more efficient solutions at the disposal of everyone because they are less expensive," he says.