You might think that Bjorn Lomborg’s new book False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet would be in the UK news more than it has been, given how interested we are in climate issues. But it doesn't seem to be. Take the BBC, for example.
There was a New York Times review of the book by Joseph Stiglitz. It's fair to say that he was not impressed, as his concluding remarks show:
"As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens a wound the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book, though, I felt compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there was merit in its arguments. This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It’s nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution."
In his turn, Lomborg was pretty unimpressed by the review. You can read his comments here. The summary of his position is that Stiglitz makes substantial claims in his review which are demonstrably false.
Lomborg says:
5. Stiglitz claims that Nordhaus and I don’t take risk into account. We do, demonstrably and repeatedly. False.
6. Stiglitz claims that social cost of carbon estimates are increasing over time. They are not. False.
7. Stiglitz seems to claim that Nordhaus and I use too high a discount rate. This is an opinion and seems unsubstantiated. But his specific suggestion that we use a 7% discount rate is straight-out false.
8. Stiglitz claims I ignore regulation as an alternative for a carbon tax. This claim is manifestly false — the whole third part of my book is about regulations beyond a carbon tax to tackle climate.
9. Stiglitz claims I should have written that Wall Street could be underwater by 2100. I didn’t because writing this is actually false. In any realistic scenario Wall St (and almost all other valuable areas) will be protected. False statement.
10. Stiglitz claims that Copenhagen Consensus lacked “true experts” but we actually included 27 of the world’s top climate economists. False.
11. Stiglitz says I’m right that there are other problems in the world, but that is a false choice, because it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is just glib: all peer reviewed climate economics show that there are real tradeoffs on climate policy — more expensive policy has benefits, but also leads to fewer resources for other areas. Indeed, the Paris Agreement will lead to more poverty. Saying “walk and chew gum” does not make the hard choices go away. False.
12. Stiglitz claims that the new 2018 IPCC report shows that I’m wrong. But unfortunately, they actually quote numbers that are similar (and somewhat lower, not higher as Stiglitz claims). False. Moreover, Stiglitz claims that Nordhaus and Lomborg underestimate of the damage associated with climate change. He doesn’t provide any alternative estimate or indication of this estimate. The used estimate is the one from the UN Climate Panel. This claim is unsubstantiated. Stiglitz also ignores my many examples of the media hyperventilating on climate reporting and brushes it off with an incorrect claim of “false news.” At best, this is dereliction of Stiglitz’ academic duty.
Lomborg also says that Stiglitz said that he was going to give the book a bad review even before he read it.
Well, economists falling out is hardly news. As I have noted before, I've got time for Lomborg's views, particularly about the sustainable development goals. I'm getting the book to see for myself ...
Responses
Lomborg wants to keep burning fossil fuels. The outcome is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact: civilisation as we know it won't survive. The media generally won't allow holocaust denial but will climate denialism. Good luck, Homo sapiens!