{"id":7748,"date":"2020-08-03T05:51:39","date_gmt":"2020-08-03T05:51:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7748"},"modified":"2020-08-03T05:51:39","modified_gmt":"2020-08-03T05:51:39","slug":"lomborg-on-stiglitz-on-lomborg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2020\/08\/03\/lomborg-on-stiglitz-on-lomborg\/","title":{"rendered":"Lomborg on Stiglitz on Lomborg"},"content":{"rendered":"

You might think that Bjorn Lomborg\u2019s new book False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet <\/i>would be in the UK news more than it has been, given how interested we are in climate issues. \u00a0But it doesn't seem to be. \u00a0Take the BBC<\/a>, for example.<\/p>\n

There was a New York Times review<\/a> of the book by Joseph Stiglitz. \u00a0It's fair to say that he was not impressed, as his concluding remarks show:<\/p>\n

\"As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. \u00a0Even 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. \u00a0Written with an aim to convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg\u2019s work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there was merit in its arguments. \u00a0This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. \u00a0It\u2019s nominally about air pollution. It\u2019s really about mind pollution.\"<\/h5>\n

In his turn, Lomborg was pretty unimpressed by the review. \u00a0You can read his comments here<\/a>. \u00a0The summary of his position is that Stiglitz makes substantial claims in his review which are demonstrably false.<\/p>\n

Lomborg says:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims I draw heavily on Nordhaus for a high cost of 2\u00b0C and 1.5\u00b0C. This is false, because Nordhaus manifestly says it can\u2019t be done.2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims that his report estimates \u201ca moderate price\u201d for reaching the Paris agreement. This is false. There is no estimate of the total economic cost in his High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices<\/a>.3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims extreme weather has already become more expensive. This is demonstrably false.4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims that the US experienced 1.5% cost from extreme weather, suggesting this is because of climate change and is increasing. The fact is, it is mostly or entirely not because of climate change, and the trend is decreasing. False.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims that Nordhaus and I don\u2019t take risk into account. We do, demonstrably and repeatedly. False.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims that social cost of carbon estimates are increasing over time. They are not. False.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz 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.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims I ignore regulation as an alternative for a carbon tax. This claim is manifestly false \u2014 the whole third part of my book is about regulations beyond a carbon tax to tackle climate.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Stiglitz claims I should have written that Wall Street could be underwater by 2100. I didn\u2019t because writing this is actually false. In any realistic scenario Wall St (and almost all other valuable areas) will be protected. False statement.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0Stiglitz claims that Copenhagen Consensus lacked \u201ctrue experts\u201d but we actually included 27 of the world\u2019s top climate economists. False.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0Stiglitz says I\u2019m 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 \u2014 more expensive policy has benefits, but also leads to fewer resources for other areas. Indeed, the Paris Agreement will lead to more poverty. Saying \u201cwalk and chew gum\u201d does not make the hard choices go away. False.<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0Stiglitz claims that the new 2018 IPCC report shows that I\u2019m wrong. But unfortunately, they actually quote numbers that are similar (and somewhat lower, not higher as Stiglitz claims). False. \u00a0Moreover, Stiglitz claims that Nordhaus and Lomborg underestimate of the damage associated with climate change. He doesn\u2019t provide any alternative estimate or indication of this estimate. The used estimate is the one from the UN Climate Panel. This claim is unsubstantiated. \u00a0Stiglitz also ignores my many examples of the media hyperventilating on climate reporting and brushes it off with an incorrect claim of \u201cfalse news.\u201d At best, this is dereliction of Stiglitz\u2019 academic duty.<\/p>\n

Lomborg also says that Stiglitz said that he was going to give the book a bad review<\/a> even before he read it.<\/p>\n

Well, economists falling out is hardly news. \u00a0As I have noted before, I've got time for Lomborg's views<\/a>, particularly about the sustainable development goals. \u00a0I'm getting the book to see for myself ...<\/p>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You might think that Bjorn Lomborg\u2019s 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...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}