Inflation Reduction Act will have ‘virtually no impact’ on global temperature: Bjorn Lomborg
Copenhagen Consensus president says if renewable energy was cheaper than fossil fuels you wouldn’t need to spend $369 billion to convince people to use green energy
Stuart Varney: So, now that President Biden and the Democrats claim the inflation Reduction Act is a historic victory for climate change. The on Lundberg joins me right before you ran the numbers. What effect does the inflation Reduction Act have on climate change?
Bjorn Lomborg: So still very little. If you look at what they’ve been telling us, they’ve said, we’re going to reduce emissions by 40%. But remember, even if we had done nothing, it would still have been reduced by about 30% because of the fracking revolution switching from coal to gas. So they’re talking about a 10 percentage points reduction. Now that’s not insubstantial. But if you plug that into the UN climate model, it turns out that it will have virtually no impact even by the end of the century. In a pessimistic scenario, it will reduce temperatures by less than 1 thousandth of a degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. In a very optimistic, I would say much too optimistic. It will reduce temperatures by less than three one hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit.
Varney: Now you are an environmentalist, and you do believe that climate is changing as a result of human activity. But you, I think, disagree with the UN goal, and its timetable and its methodology. You want a completely new way of reducing emissions, am I right?
Lomborg: What’s do I think it’s more I don’t disagree with their analysis, but I disagree with the way that we’re being told oh, this is an amazing agreement that will dramatically reduce carbon emissions and hence climate change. Yes, it will reduce carbon emissions quite a bit, but it will actually do almost nothing for the global temperature, because the vast majority of emissions are not going to come from the U.S. or the rich well, meaning Westerners. It’s gonna come from China, India, and Africa. And so we got to start thinking about how are we going to succeed by convincing everyone to spend $369 billion to cut carbon emissions very little? Of course, you’re not going to do that with India. Or with Africa. What you need to do is to dramatically increase investment in green energy research and development, so that eventually we get green energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels. By then, of course, everyone will switch.
Varney: Listen to what Biden’s Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm claims is the best plan for world peace was with
Granholm: “My counterpart in Ireland, the minister, their energy minister there, has said that no one has ever weaponized access to the sun. No one has ever weaponized the wind. Perhaps a move to clean energy will be the greatest peace plan the world has ever known.”
Varney: Okay, do you all you heard that greatest peace plan the world has ever known and move to green energy? What are you?
Lomborg: Well, they fundamentally tell you, Oh, it’s free to just have solar and wind but of course, it’s not free because you need to find partly pay for the actual stuff, you know, the solar panels or the wind turbine, but you also need to pay for storage, which is why currently it cost you money.
Look, if it was free if it was cheaper than fossil fuels, you wouldn’t need to spend $369 billion to convince people to buy more green energy. You need to subsidize it because it’s not because what are you going to do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining? You don’t have another option. That’s of course, why India and Africa, and China is not going to go nearly as much into the wind and solar. So look, yes, there is some good in renewables and we should definitely exploit them when we can and when it makes economic sense.