Spodaj je dobra nit Bjorna Lomborga o stroških in koristih boja proti klimatskim spremembam, ki temeljijo na dveh novih znanstvenih člankih s področja ekonomike podnebnih sprememb. Ključne poante: (1) stroški boja proti klimatskim spremembam, kot je sedaj zastavljen, so 5-krat večji od globalnih koristi: koristi naj bi znašale okrog 4,500 milijard $, stroški pa 26.8 milijard $. Drugače rečeno, za vsak vložen dolar v boj proti podnebnim spremembam bodo koristi zgolj 17 centov.

Drugič, strategija proti podnebnim spremembam prek opuščanja fosilnih goriv in neto ničelnih izpustov CO2 do leta 2050 zahteva prilagoditve predvsem v državah v razvoju, ki se zaradi tega ne bodo mogle enako energetsko intenzivno razvijati, kot so se zdaj razvite države, ki so postopoma v industrijski dobi zakuhale to godljo. Drugače rečeno, nerazvite države bodo zaradi boja proti podnebnim spremembam, kot je zastavljen danes, obsojene na energetsko revščino in nižjo gospodarsko rast in blaginjo. Nerazvitim državam se ta boj ne splača, razvojno jim škodi. Le zakaj bi aktivno sodelovale v njem?

In tretjič, treba se je domisliti bolj premišljenega načina boja proti podnebnim spremembam, ki bo prinašal neto koristi, in sicer neto koristi vsem, predvsem pa nerazvitim državam. Prehod na obnovljive vire energije sonca in vetra to prav gotovo ni (ki konec koncev ne zmanjšuje odvisnosti od fosilnih virov, saj bodo ti potrebni za proizvodnjo nadomestne električne energije in za regulacijo elektroenergetskih sistemov, s tem pa ne pride do željenega razogljičenja). Prehod, ki upošteva nizkoogljične vire, kot sta jedrska in hidro, ter ki upošteva energetsko bolj varčne in čistejše tehnologije v industrijski proizvodnji, pa prav gotovo je korak v pravi smeri. Če želimo to pospešiti, je treba na globalni ravni zagotoviti financiranje oziroma finančne programe z ugodnimi viri za države v razvoju ter neposredne investicije. Programi, ki tega ne upoštevajo, niso vredni piškavega oreha, saj so zgrajeni v oblakih iluzij.

___________

Paris climate policy will cost a sizable fraction of 21st century prosperity
Two new, explosive, peer-reviewed papers show net-zero/1.5°C :
Benefit $4.5 trillion/year
Cost $26.8 trillion/year
Total loss is $1,800 trillion over the century
We must do better

🧵 + refs

New special issue of peer-reviewed journal 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴
First climate economic article shows cost and benefit of 1.5°C target

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…
worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

Climate benefit of 1.5°C policy is less than 0.5% of global GDP by mid-century and 3.1% by 2100
This is an overestimate, as it assumes change from absurdly high damage (RCP8.5) to 1.5°C
Based on new meta-analysis, 39 papers w/61 published estimates
worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

Climate benefit of 1.5°C non-trivial
Economic costs are larger every year of this century

+ Cost wildly too small as paper assumes perfect climate policy with global, single, increasing carbon tax
In real life 2x higher or more

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

Second climate economic article shows more realistic costs of 1.5°C and its close cousin Net-Zero by 2050

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

Paris climate policy benefit low
Theoretical cost higher
Realistic cost of 1.5°C much higher again

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

Paris climate policy benefit low
Theoretical cost higher
Realistic cost of 1.5°C much higher again
Realistic cost of Net-zero by 2050 even higher

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

MIT paper only shows consumption costs, but authors shared GDP losses
They also shared their GDP development over century in 2007 US$ (roughly like UN SSP2)
Adj to 2023 US$ using BEA Table 1.1.9

worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

All figures are undiscounted
Since costs come before benefits, any discounting makes the benefit-cost ratio over the century even worse
Without discounting, each dollar delivers less than 17¢ of climate benefits
With 5% discounting it is less than a dime

We need to do better:
Green R&D is the way to dramatically cut the cost of going green
If we can innovate green energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩
e.g.
cambridge.org/core/books/sma…

Paris climate policy will cost $27 trillion each year throughout the 21st century
Each dollar delivers just 17¢ of benefits
Our politicians need to do better
worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…
worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2…

promises are far more wasteful than useful

I wrote a WSJ oped, detailing the new peer-reviewed studies that show
Paris climate promises could cost $27 trillion each year this century

wsj.com/articles/net-z…
archive.vn/DueaA

Vir: Bjorn Lomborg, twitter/X