Lomborg on High Cost - Paris Accord
http://www.lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/art_bl_2011-07july-11_the_australian.pdf
Introducing a carbon price may feel like a symbolic victory - particularly after years of fiery, distracting debate over the reality of global warming - but unfortunately, symbolism will not reduce temperature rises. The main climate economic models show that to achieve the much discussed goal of keeping temperature increases under 2C, we would need a global tax on carbon emissions that would start at nearly $100 per tonne and increase to more than $3700 per tonne by the end of the century.
This would cost the world $40 trillion a year by 2100, according to calculations by noted climate economist Richard Tol. But all in all, this spending would be 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it seeks to prevent, according to mainstream calculations of expected damage. In other words, a carbon tax that is set high enough to meaningfully rein in temperatures would cause widespread economic damage. This is because non-carbon-based alternative energy sources are not ready to take over from fossil fuels.
…
The avoided carbon emissions from all of China's solar and wind generation - even maintained across the entire century - would lower temperatures in 2100 by 0.00001C. That is the equivalent, based on mainstream climate models, of delaying temperature rises at the end of the century by about five hours.
…
The Australian government's plan to pump $13bn into Australia's clean and renewable energy sector is a nod in the right direction. Unfortunately, the details released on Sunday suggest that this investment will subsidise the deployment of existing, inefficient technology. We have seen this occur elsewhere. Germany, for example, led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by about $70bn in subsidies. Inefficient, uncompetitive solar technology sits on rooftops across a fairly cloudy country. Despite the considerable investment, this delivers just 0.1 per cent of Germany's total energy supply and has a trivial influence on global warming.
…
Despite 20 years of earnest rhetoric by politicians, carbon emissions have continued to climb virtually unabated.
In fact, the world will spend $125 billion on wind and solar subsidies alone in 2017. Despite four decades of financial support, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that wind provides just 0.5% of today’s energy needs, and solar photovoltaic a minuscule 0.1%.
…
More than $3 trillion will be spent on subsidies just on wind and solar photovoltaic over the next 25 years. Even by 2040, and assuming that all of the Paris agreement’s promises are fulfilled, the IEA expects wind and solar to provide, respectively, just 1.9% and 1% of global energy. This is not what an economy in the midst of an “inevitable” shift away from fossil fuels looks like.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
