A. ignores climate economics
A. ignores climate economics
A new UN report states that the global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been awarded the Nobel Prize. Events are reported as two parts of the same story, but reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy, and why the economy matters more than ever.
Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels, as requested by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is economical and practically impossible, as shown by Mr. Nordhaus's work. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of reaching zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap and efficient energy, while green energy remains uncompetitive. The change to a more expensive and less efficient technology delays the development. In poor nations that means fewer people left poverty. In the rich it means that the most vulnerable are affected by higher energy bills.
The IPCC says that carbon emissions should peak at this time and fall quickly to avoid a catastrophe. The models really reveal that to achieve the goal of 2.7 degrees, the world must stop all use of fossil fuels in less than four years. However, the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will continue to cover three-quarters of the world's energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The responsible body of the United States for the agreement estimates that if all countries meet all the pledges by 2030, CO2 emissions will be reduced by 60 billion tons by 2030. That is less than 1% of what is needed to keep the temperature rise below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be enormously expensive: reduce global growth from $ 1 trillion to $ 2 trillion each year by 2030.
The European Union is committed to reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology and the optimistic assumption that EU climate policy is well designed and coordinated, the average of the seven main models reviewed By pairs determines that the annual costs of the EU will reach € 2.9 trillion ($ 3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment , police and defense combined. In fact, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient mosaic. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer by 2050.
Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be tremendously expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, since it is due to the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel's latest offer. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That simply is not the end of the world.
The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate objectives. The most recent estimate by Mr. Nordhaus, published in August, is that the "optimal" result with a moderate tax on carbon is an increase of approximately 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature increases by more would result in costs higher than benefits, potentially causing a loss of $ 50 billion in the world.
It is time to stop pushing for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take control. Instead, the world must focus on solving the technological deficit that makes the change of fossil fuels so costly. Genuine advances are required to reduce the future price of green energy.
The Copenhagen consensus analysis shows that an increased green energy research and development budget of around $ 100 billion a year would be the most effective policy for global warming. It would be much cheaper than the approach promoted by the IPCC and would not require a global consensus. Most importantly, you would have a better chance of improving the temperature increases. According to the IPPC approach, by contrast, costs would far outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, the exaggerated reception of the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue along a path where costs far outweigh the benefits.
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of "The Sceptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It".
.
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario