Tol/Lomborg Becoming Powerful Voices Of Reason On Climate Policy In German Media: “1 Euro Costs…3 Cents Benefit”

Lomborg_1It seems that it is beginning to dawn on some of Europe’s mainstream media: The transition to green energies is turning out to be ten or even 100 times more expensive than what they were led to believe just a few years ago.

Increasingly we have been seeing reports featuring renowned climate economists such as Bjørn Lomborg or Richard Tol in the German-language mainstream media.

The message: Hey, this green energy policy really isn’t working well at all.

And again the climate policy critics Tol and Lomborg are being featured by the German-language media as respected dissident voices, this time by the online Austrian nachrichten.at in an article titled: 1 Euro Kosten, 3 Cent Nutzen. In English:

1 euro costs, 3 cents benefit

First the nachrichten.at discusses what could be the most economically sensible way of reducing CO2 emissions. So far the measures that have been implemented have been both effective and ineffective: Effective at costing lots of money, ineffective at actually reducing CO2 emissions.

The nachrichten.at writes that the most effective policy to reduce carbon emissions may be a CO2 tax, but then writes how Australia has just repealed it because of its sheer unpopularity.

The Austrian nachrichten.at then writes about the astronomical costs and the utter ineffectivity of climate policy so far:

Already the EU 2020 strategy costs 185 billion euros annually. By the end of the century the costs will run to 15 trillion euros. With this, according to the UN IPCC, the global temperature increase will be lowered 0.05°C. For every euro that the EU pays into climate protection, it prevents 3 cents worth of damage from climate change. Lomborg writes: ‘That is not rational policy!'”

The nachrichten.at quotes what Lomborg said in 2013:

If the measures against climate change are not economically efficient, then they will not be sustainable because countries struggling to emerge like India and China will not follow along.”

Tol U of SussexMoreover the article presents harsh criticism from Richard Tol, writing:

Trillions of euros, zero effect

What has been done and planned thus far has been a debacle. […] Although the consequences of climate change cannot be denied, they have, however, been drastically overestimated. Tol accuses the climate scientists of acting ‘bitterly and politically’.”

Things are slowly changing. German language media are increasingly presenting other opinions to get the public to take another look at where the current, skewed energy policy is leading. That’s good news because a debate has long been sorely missing. As the costs skyrocket, the days of isolating divergent opinions may be ending.

Photo top right (Lomborg): Source
Photo bottom right (Tol): Source

 

14 responses to “Tol/Lomborg Becoming Powerful Voices Of Reason On Climate Policy In German Media: “1 Euro Costs…3 Cents Benefit””

  1. Layne

    Tol needs a comb. But we’ll take him as he is!

    1. DirkH

      It’s an old photo. He doesn’t need a comb anymore.

    2. Pointman

      That photo was from his mad scientist days; it was the style then.

      Pointman

  2. Spetzer86

    How over estimated would the effects of climate change need to be before they COULD be denied? Is anyone tracking this?

  3. John F. Hultquist

    “Although the consequences of climate change cannot be denied, they have, however, been drastically overestimated.” [R. Tol]

    I get out a little and see the same wild flowers and trees growing now that grew in the same places many years ago. Researchers claim these same plants were here 100 years ago, even 200 years ago, and much longer. Millions of years ago the local conditions were much different and fossil plants do indicate a different climate. Local oral histories and more recently recorded history suggests that not much has changed since industrialization and anything that has changed likely has causes other than “climate change.”

    Thus, Tol’s comment needs clarification. Is he referring to human caused CO2 change, or what?

    1. DirkH

      Yes. He is a Lesser Warmist like Lomborg; as opposed to the Greater Warmists like Hansen, Schneider(RIP), McKibben.

      1. John F. Hultquist

        Lesser Warmist
        Greater Warmist
        Clueless Warmists – large number of politicians

    2. Brian H

      Cannot be denied, my bippy. Virtually every “consequence” attributed to warming, even including drought, is actually a result of cooling. The entire attribution and consequence narrative is fogged. FUBAR, in fact.

  4. oebele bruinsma

    I agree with DirkH.

  5. Boyfromtottenham

    I’m sure that Lomborg is on the right track here – democracy and economics, not science or politics will ultimately settle this. All voters have wallets, and if they feel pain in the wallet, they will ask why. Telling them that “97% of scientists say xxx” will not stop their pain, so they will vote to stop it. And politicians who want to stay in power will toe the line, or end up like three of the past Labor prime ministers in Australia – as failed PMs. Keep up the good work, PG and your allies!

  6. Wind Farms: Pros and Cons - Page 6

    […] from the same gas fields. Dismay as company pulls plug on Shannon LNG project | Irish Examiner http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/25/t…cents-benefit/ Snake oil salesmen indeed Maybe you never learned supply and demand in college. Yes, […]

  7. DirkH

    BTW count Bill Gates amongst the Lesser Warmists, he has a blog and he loves Lomborg.
    http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Two-Videos-Illuminate-Energy-Poverty-Bjorn-Lomborg

  8. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?