Reblogged:Lomborg on Green Energy Costs

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Although Bjorn Lomborg does not address the fact that green energy policies violate individual rights, his most recent op-ed in the New York Post is full of facts and figures that will interest anyone opposing such policies.

The major thrust of the argument is cost, with the following critique likely to disturb many Americans:

How to top off a coal-powered car. (Image by Possessed Photography, via Unsplash, license.)

Research published in Nature finds that reducing emissions just 80% will cost the United States more than $2.1 trillion every year from 2050, or more than $5,000 per person, per year. The cost of achieving Biden's promised 100% reductions will be far higher.

To put this in context, the annual US cost of World War II is estimated at $1 trillion in today's money. Every year by 2050, climate policy could cost Americans more than twice what they paid during the Second World War. [links omitted, format edits, bold added]

In addition to the staggering costs, Lomborg argues that these will accomplish next to nothing towards their stated goal of reducing emissions:

That estimate [$150 trillion over 30 years worldwide to reduce emissions] is based on the fanciful assumption that costs are spread efficiently, with big emitters China and India cutting the most. But India says it will only keep moving toward net-zero if the rest of the world pays it $1 trillion by 2030 -- something that won't happen. Most cuts will likely only happen in rich countries, which will mean a relatively trifling cut to global emissions. The rich world will get all pain for little gain. [bold added]

And this is on top of the West crippling itself with reliability problems. Batteries, for example, are nowhere near ready to help in that department:

... Batteries are inadequate and expensive, easily quadrupling solar electricity costs and failing to provide much power. In 2021, Europe only had battery capacity to backup less than 1 1/2 minutes of its average electricity usage. By 2030, with 10 times the stock of batteries, and somewhat more usage needed, they'll have enough for 12 minutes. [bold added]

That last was perhaps the most striking to me in terms of showing how not "ready for prime time" batteries are.

There are moral and political reasons for opposing environmentalism, and this piece does not address those, but it can still be useful as a means of helping get the attention of complacent or undecided people who might be sympathetic to such arguments.

-- CAV

Link to Original