On October 24th, economist Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published an opinion piece on climate change in the Wall Street Journal. Although he made some fair points about the politics of climate change, including Americans’ deprioritization of the issue in the most recent election cycle, he also penned a staggering number of false and misleading statements under the guise of an ‘opinion’ article. I will endeavor to fact check some of his more egregious assertions.
“As climate policy turns from distant grandiose promises of future carbon cuts into the very real prospect of present-day energy price hikes…” – MISLEADING
Lomborg fails to mention that prices will become far worse if countries wait to transition to green energy. An Oxford University study found that if the world transitions “fast” to renewables and decarbonizes by 2050, $400 billion would be saved by 2050 when compared to a “slow” transition where decarbonization happens by 2070. The Fast Transition is not only more economical than the Slow Transition, but it is also $514 billion dollars cheaper than not transitioning to clean energy at all. This study hinges on the fact that renewable energy is actually cheaper than fossil fuels – for decades, fossil fuel costs have remained relatively constant (accounting for inflation), while solar and wind costs have dropped at a rate of 10% per year. By 2017, solar had outcompeted coal and gas to become the cheapest source of energy in the world. Based on this study, it is obvious that the world should switch to renewable sources of energy as fast as possible.
“This is the first presidential election in which the economic consequences of green ideals have become real with less reliable power…” – FALSE
It is a common misconception that renewable energy is unreliable. In an electricity grid, because of the amount of renewable energy being utilized and the ability to store that energy for longer in batteries, a balanced grid is created with reliable power. In South Australia, for example, the electricity grid ran on only solar and wind for multiple days, with no coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear involvement. The renewable energy grid can also be backed up with other renewable sources, making fossil fuels unncessary. The record shows that renewable energy is reliable.
“The Inflation Reduction Act’s climate measures as written were likely to lower the projected global temperature in 2100 by less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit.” – FALSE
This is simply not true. I could not find where Lomborg came up with these numbers – the link he provided led to a tweet that he had written. The London School of Economics has explained how Lomborg has made predictions such as this based on the idea that countries will hit their climate targets for 2025 or 2030, and then immediately increase their emissions in ‘business as usual’ for the rest of the century. This is not the case, as climate pledges become more ambitious over time and countries continue cutting emissions. After all these investments, it would be counterproductive for countries to regress.
Lomborg is also confused about the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a piece of legislation passed under President Joe Biden to reduce healthcare costs, increase tax revenue and address climate change. By 2035, the IRA is expected to reduce emissions by 43-48% from 2005 levels. Without the IRA, emissions are only expected to decrease 27-35%. And because of the IRA, wind and solar deployment is expected to increase by 58 gigawatts/year – more than two times the average increase over the past few years. Net spending on energy is expected to decline as well, decreasing anywhere from $10 billion to $52 billion by 2035 and saving households up to $370 per year. The IRA clearly has measurable impacts on the reduction of emissions and the deployment of green energy.
“It’s developing nations that are driving emissions in this century…this century’s biggest emitters [are] India, China and Africa.” – FALSE
This statement is flagrantly wrong. Besides the fallacy of comparing an entire continent to two countries, Africa does not emit significant amounts of CO2– the continent is responsible for only 3.2% of global emissions. Lomborg also fails to mention the contribution of the US, which is actually the second largest carbon emitter in the world. The United States is responsible for 13.6% of the world’s emissions, but only holds 4.2% of the world’s population. We see this in the huge amount of carbon per capita emitted, with the US emitting 14.9 tons. This is in comparison to China and India, who only emit eight and two tons per capita, respectively. It is absolutely false that Africa is one of the world’s biggest emitters, and it is deceptive to talk about India and China’s emissions without taking into account those of the United States.
Lomborg deliberately misleads his readers about the significance of climate change. He damages the educational work done by the scientific community and gives climate deniers further reasons to oppose a green transition. On a surface level, he appears to have credible evidence, but under deeper scrutiny, he is utterly lacking in real proof. The man chose to cite his own tweets, for God’s sake. Although Lomborg may have made some excellent points about the politics and economics of the green transition, because of his persistent lies and deceptive claims, he has rendered himself untrustworthy. Maybe if he has done proper research, he could have written a better, factually correct article.
If you want to find out more about Dr. Lomborg’s views, the London School of Economics wrote an excellent review regarding one of his recent books, False Alarm.