Public skepticism about global warming may be growing, but the scientific consensus is as solid as ever: Manmade climate change is real and we ignore it at our peril. However, if that issue is settled (and it should be), there is an equally large and important question that remains wide open: What should we do about it?
One prescription that is bandied about with increasing frequency certainly sounds sensible: The world should drastically cut the amount of greenhouse gases that it pumps into the atmosphere each day. Specifically, we are told, the goal should be a 50 percent reduction in global carbon-dioxide emissions by the middle of the century.
Even its backers concede that achieving this target won’t be easy — and they are right. In fact, they are so right that they are wrong. Allow me to explain.
Our dependency on carbon-emitting fuels is more than enormous, it is overwhelming. For all the talk about solar, wind and other hyped green-energy sources, they make up only 0.6 percent of global energy consumption. Renewable energy overwhelmingly comes from often-unsustainable burning of wood and biomass by people in the Third World. Fossil fuels account for more than four-fifths of the world’s energy diet. So, in order to cut global carbon emissions in half by the middle of the century, we would obviously have to start getting a lot more of our energy from sources that don’t emit carbon.
Can we do this? According to the International Energy Agency, here’s what it would take to achieve the goal of cutting emissions by 50 percent between now and mid-century:
• 30 new nuclear plants;
• 17,000 windmills;
• 400 biomass power plants;
• Two hydroelectric facilities the size of China’s massive Three Gorges Dam and 42 coal and gas power plants with yet-to-be-developed carbon-capture technology.
Now consider the fact that the above list does not describe what we would have to build between now and 2050, but what we would have to build each and every year until then.
One more thing: Even if we managed to do all this (which we obviously cannot), the impact on global temperatures would be hardly noticeable by 2050. According to the best-known climate-economic model, this vast undertaking would likely wind up reducing global temperatures by just one-tenth of 1˚C, while holding back sea-level rises by only 1cm.
That’s not a lot of bang for the buck. Indeed, the projected costs of this approach — some US$5 trillion annually by mid-century — are so much greater than its likely benefits that it makes no sense to call it a solution at all.
Fortunately, there is a better, smarter way to deal with global warming. What if, instead of spending trillions of dollars trying to build an impossible number of power plants — or, more likely, condemning billions of people around the world to continued poverty by trying to make carbon-emitting fuels too expensive to use — we devoted ourselves to making green energy cheaper?
Right now, solar panels are so expensive — about 10 times more than fossil fuels in terms of cost per unit of energy output — that only well-heeled, well-meaning (and usually well-subsidized) Westerners can afford to install them. However, think where we’d be if we could improve the efficiency of solar cells by a factor of ten — in other words, if we could make them cheaper than fossil fuels. We wouldn’t have to force (or subsidize) anyone to stop burning coal and oil. Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would shift to the cheaper and cleaner alternatives — and global emission targets would automatically be met.
Can we achieve this technological miracle over the next 20 to 40 years? In a word, yes. The price of solar energy has been dropping steadily for 30 years — by about 50 percent every decade — and we could likely accelerate that decline further with sufficiently large investments in research and development.
How large? If we were willing to devote just 0.2 percent of global GDP (roughly US$100 billion a year) to green-energy R&D, we could bring about game-changing breakthroughs not just for solar power, but also for a wide variety of other alternative-energy technologies.
This belief in the potential of technological progress strikes some climate activists as naive or even delusional. But is it really? Consider one of the miracles of the modern age — the personal computer. These devices didn’t become household items because governments subsidized purchases or forced up the price of typewriters and slide rules.
No, what happened is that, largely as a result of the space race, the US government poured lots of money into R&D for solid-state physics and electronics engineering. The resulting breakthroughs not only got Neil Armstrong to the moon in 1969, but also made it possible for Apple to introduce the first Mac in 1976 and IBM to debut the first PC five years later.
We can do the same for clean energy. Forget about subsidizing inefficient technologies or making fossil fuels too expensive to use. Instead, let’s fund the basic research that will make green energy too cheap and easy to resist.
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath