Bjorn Lomborg

I have long considered Bjorn Lomborg, Danish political scientist and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, as one of the more reasonable voices on the subject of climate change. Unlike the big names in climate activism, like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and (Lord, help us!) Leonardo DiCaprio, Lomborg offers a more moderate and, I think, realistic assessment of the impact of global warming.

In this discussion with Dave Rubin, Lomborg is encouraged that the hysteria over climate change has decreased in recent years. This, in my opinion, is the effects of climate activists making hyperbolic and bizarre claims on the impact of climate change, such as the Arctic ice field disappearing, the Maldives being underwater, and no more snow in England or Australia. So many of these absurd predictions, supposedly backed up by “the science,” have failed to materialize that people are beginning to become skeptical that climate change is a cause for concern. There is a Climate Clock in New York City that purports to tell us how long we have to reduce carbon emissions so that Earth’s temperature will be limited to a 1.5 celsius rise in temperature – after which, we are doomed to suffer “famines, droughts, floods, displacement, conflict, suffering, disaster.” The Climate Clock claims to be backed by science, but there’s confusion over exactly how much time we have left. At one place on the Climate Clock website, it says we have about 4 1/3 years left to “save the planet,” while elsewhere on the same webite (indeed, by simply scrolling down on the same page) it tells us we have just under eight years to “save the planet” by getting off fossil fuels and transitioning to green energy. The Climate Clock website calls for “bold, transformational change in our global economy” to avoid suffering the disastrous consequences of global warming.

At the same time, Lomborg is concerned that the decrease in alarm over climate change will go too far in the other direction. The pendulum is swinging, and Lomborg hopes that it doesn’t swing so far that people reject the idea that climate change is real and that action on humankind’s part can help alleviate the negative consequences. Let’s be clear, Lomborg is convinced that climate change is real and that it’s caused by humans. He’s not convinced that the consequences of climate change will be horrible, disastrous, or life extinguishing as claimed by extremist activists. This seems to me to be a reasonable approach.

So, what to do? Lomborg insists that we’re going to be a civilization dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Nothing is going to replace fossil fuels in any where close to the four or eight years the Climate Clock says we must free ourselves from fossil fuels. Also, not much considered by those who insist that we stop relying on fossil fuels is the fact that modern civilation, especially in the last three or four decades, has significantly reduced the number of people in the world living in abject poverty, and that is largely due to our exploitation of fossil fuels. One example that Lomborg points out is the use of fertalizers produced from fossil fuels that have allowed the people of the world to increase exponentially the amount of food we can produce, thus saving billions from starvation. Approximately 40% of the people in the world live on produce grown with the use of fertalizers developed from fossil fuels. So, if we rid ourselves of fossil fuels, including the fertalizers made from them, then Lomborg says approximately four billion people would face starvation. This, of course, is not an option. Yes, there is that small number of activists who regard humans as a kind of pestilence on the planet (except for them, ‘natch!), but the great majority of sane people don’t want to see billions of people starve to death for the sake of promoting green energy. In 1971, we got 87% of our energy from fossil fuels. Today, we get 81% of our energy from fossil fuels. Progress, sure. But it’s also clear that, at that rate, we’re not breaking free from fossil fuels anytime soon.

Lomborg also points out that solar and wind energy are not realistic options for the great majority of the world’s population. Promoters of solar and wind energy insist that it’s far cheaper than energy production from fossil fuels. But, of course, that’s only when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing. When the sun is not shining, as in that half of the day we call “night,” than solar energy is much more expensive because it’s simply unavailable. Currently, 10% of electricity is produced by solar and wind in sunny California, but electricity accounts for only a small part of our energy needs. To account for those times of the day (night) or those times of the year (winter) when solar and wind are not so available, Lomborg reports the U. S. would require about three months of battery back up. Currently, the U. S. has about ten minutes of battery back up. That three months of battery back up would cost the U. S. about a third of our GDP, just for the back up batteries for solar and wind. Currently, the U. S. spends about 3-4% of our GDP on buying electricity. Yeah, that doesn’t seem promising. Lomborg is all for continuing to develop solar and wind energy, but not to be so foolish as to think we’re going to be able to depend on them any time soon. I think probably never, because there’s only so much progress you can make with these. There comes a point where you reach maximum output, and I think solar and wind are probably pretty close to that point. Solar and wind are only going to carry us up to a certain point, and they’ll never carry us beyond that point.

Lomborg has two suggestions for how we can develop clean energy. First, exploitation of natural gas. Natural gas is cheap and available and significantly less carbon based, so our carbon footprint would be lowered. A second suggestion is the development of nuclear power. Nuclear power, Lomborg, says, was the great hope of decades ago that we could produce energy cheaply. But government put so many regulations on it and red tape in getting nuclear power plants up and running that business people did not see the benefit. Too much cost, too little return. China, on the other hand, is building many nuclear power plants. Lomborg suggests building smaller plants and selling thousands across the country. Nuclear power, he says, is inherently safe and cannot be used to make weapons.

Again, I think Lomborg has proven himself one of the more reasonable voices on the matter of climate change. That’s why I’m impressed with his strategies and suggestions. He doesn’t deny climate change, but neither does he regard it as the end of the world. We’ll see what comes of it all, but in the meanwhile I suggest we put our eggs in the baskets of natural gas and nuclear power.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.