Born Wrongborg

Posted by Graham Thompson — 15 April 2013 at 4:59pm - Comments
by-nc-nd. Credit: Mat McDermott/creative commons
Cross my palm with silver...

Bjorn Lomborg, the man who used to be the world’s most well-known climate sceptic, has resurfaced in the Wall Street Journal and Channel 4 with a new way to be wrong on climate change.  
 
I must admit being somewhat jealous of Bjorn Lomborg. Here’s a man who has managed to create not just a successful career, but something of a global media empire, off the back of nothing more than being consistently and publically wrong. Not consistently wrong in the sense of having defended a consistent position which is wrong, but in the sense of holding a wide variety of different positions which have all been consistently wrong.
 
I, on the other hand, have devoted my entire life to being right. Where is my global media empire? You’re looking at it. Where is the justice? Still looking for it.
 
Anyway, we’ve just entered the neolombic era, where the key message is -
 
We shouldn’t try to cut emissions, because the technology isn’t ready.

 
This succeeds the hopelessly outdated mesolombic position –

We shouldn’t try to cut emissions, because the money is needed elsewhere.
 
Which itself succeeded the paleolombic position –

We shouldn’t try to cut emissions, because climate change isn’t a big deal.
 
Which supplanted the short-lived and little-remembered proto-lombic position –

We shouldn’t try to cut emissions, because climate change probably isn’t happening.
 
So Lomborg is following the climate denial trend and being wrong about clean technology, its costs and benefits. He’s still wrong on climate science too, and his climate finance figures are five times higher than official figures, and about three times higher than the figures from what Lomborg himself describes as ‘the best-regarded economic models’, but no-one has time to read a comprehensive list of all his mistakes, so let’s focus on the tech stuff.

There are two main reasons why he’s wrong. Firstly, he’s chosen the wrong date to launch this latest mistake. By quite a margin, in fact. If he’d tried this mistake ten years ago, it might have sounded plausible, but to claim now that our clean energy technologies aren’t up to the job, and we need to draw back from installation and return to the drawing board until renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels is somewhat undermined by renewables already being cheaper than fossil fuels.

Solar power became cheaper than diesel in India over a year ago and the price of solar panels is expected to continue to plummet. Meanwhile in Brazil, the gas industry is asking for state protection as it is unable to compete with wind power, and renewable energy is cheaper than electricity from either gas or coal in Australia.
 
And it’s getting to a competitive scale – in Portugal 70% of their electricity has been generated from renewables so far this year.

And this is all working according to blinkered, short-term, profit-driven traditional economics. If you include the damage done to our climate in your balance sheet, then renewables have been cheaper than fossil fuels for a very long time indeed.

Of course, renewables have yet to achieve full-spectrum global dominance, but the point is that the advances mentioned above weren’t all made in the lab, but in factories, on construction sites, and in the global markets. It’s the widespread installation of renewable energy which is driving the cost reductions. If renewables were to retreat from the market to focus on R&D, at a time when they are out-competing and replacing fossil fuels at an accelerating rate, which sector would that really benefit?

But this is a minor error compared to Lomborg’s latest biggy. As an economist, this one’s particularly embarrassing, as he’s failed to understand how western capitalist economies work. Not just that demand spurs innovation, or that economies of scale reduce costs, but a much more basic error. The markets do not necessarily go for the most efficient option, unless someone with significant wealth and power decides they can use that option to increase that wealth and power. If there is consensus amongst the elite that they’re quite happy with the way things are going using the current, less efficient option, then that’s the way we’ll carry on doing things. Our economic system is efficient in the sense that it’s good at turning millionaires into multi-millionaires, and multi-millionaires into billionaires, but its ability to externalise costs and remove them from the corporate balance sheet make it rubbish when it comes to maximinsing cost efficiency for society in general, and it has a negative impact, that is, minimises efficiency, when it comes to resource use. Trusting the market to invent and promote the right energy technologies is no more sensible than trusting the market to invent and promote the right financial instruments. They’re not condemned to certain failure, but there’s certainly no guarantee of success.
 
To quote ex-energy minister Lord Hutton in Saturday’s Telegraph – “Left to its own devices, the market would not choose to invest in capital intensive low carbon infrastructure. This would lead us to a precarious, high carbon future increasingly dependent on imported gas.”

And he should know. Lord Hutton is a lobbyist for the nuclear industry, which has never managed to build a power station anywhere in the world without public subsidy, and doesn’t look likely to. Yet the world still has hundreds of operating reactors, and our government wants to subsidise a few more.

It’s funny how Lomborg’s various plans, plots and schemes vary in their premises, analysis and focus as each one gets overwhelmed by reality, but they’re actually all entirely consistent with each other in two ways – they’re all wrong, and they all imply that we should burn more fossil fuels.
 
Perhaps that’s his secret – to be a globally celebrated climate pundit it’s not enough just to be loudly and repeatedly wrong on the issues, you need to be wrong in a way which promotes our increasing dependence on imported gas. You need to be wrong in the right way.



@Edenfisher

You have to admire their dedication. Defending someone who claims 2+2=5 is one thing, defending someone who says 2+2= 5,6,7 or 8 depending on when you ask him - that takes real loyalty.

@John B

I presume you're already aware that fossil fuels get many times more in subsidies than renewables or nuclear? According to the IMF, 8% of total global government revenues are spent on fossil fuel subsidies - http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf

@John B

I do beg your pardon, when I wrote 'According to the IMF, 8% of total global government revenues are spent on fossil fuel subsidies' I forgot to put 'total' in capitals. Let me try that again.

According to the IMF, 8% of TOTAL global government revenues are spent on fossil fuel subsidies.

Is that better?

@Ali Shaw

The nuclear industry are currently asking for more money per kWh than even offshore wind, and a lot more than onshore. It is one of the most expensive energy sources, despite the enormous amount of subsidies it has received over the last century.

Here's a story on that published a few hours ago -

http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=198434&title=EDF+Ene...

Incidentally, the reason the government is going for £80 is because offshore wind can do £85 - 15% cheaper than nuclear, and they only want a 15 year guarantee, while nuclear is asking for 40 years.

You've been spun, I'm afraid. If the economics of nuclear were as you claim, then someone somewhere would have managed to build a reactor without subsidy, but it's never been done.

 

@Ali Shaw

'so cheap per kWh'?

You may have a hundred reasons why you think it should be cheap, but the fact is EDF are asking for £100/kWh. Guaranteed for 40 years.

Are you saying that £100/kWh is cheap?

I do beg your pardon.

To clarify :

EDF want £100/MWh for Hinkley C, guaranteed for 40 years.

The government's initial offer was £80/MWh.

Offshore wind clam they can deliver at £85/MWh by 2020, and want a 15 year guarantee.

Onshore wind is currently £90/MWh.

So can someone explain to me again why £100/MWh is cheap?

@Chris Phillips

I see, so when the nuclear industry make a claim, I should assume that they're being overly modest and will actually do better, but when the wind industry make a claim, I should assume that they're being boastful and are unlikely to achieve it.

I'm afraid history doesn't really support that position.

Regarding intermittency, wind turbines sometimes fail to generate for a few days, but we get a few days warning. Nuclear reactors can go off line for years with no warning at all. And frequently do. Why would you prefer that?

Follow Greenpeace UK