SELF-STYLED “sceptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg’s call for a $100 billion a year global fund for research into climate change solutions was given a cautious welcome by some leading green groups and thinktanks, but was dismissed by others as politically naive.
A Greenpeace spokesperson welcomed the conversion but said it had come two decades too late for Lomborg to be taken seriously. “At least it confirms the happy maxim that nobody’s wrong all the time,” the spokesperson added.
“It appears that the self-styled sceptical environmentalist is beginning to become less sceptical as he enters middle-age,” said Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Mike Childs, adding that Lomborg’s volte face would come as a “blow to some in the climate sceptics community”.
The controversial Danish statistician, who has never denied man's role in global warming but who has provided an intellectual cover for hard-line climate sceptics, has previously argued that countering climate change should be a low priority for governments. But in his new book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, he argues that it should now be addressed "as a priority".
“Lomborg has acknowledged the need for public spending on man-made climate change. He is right that wind, wave and solar are the energy industries in the future and need much greater support from governments. A carbon tax to raise funds is undoubtedly part of the solution, but regulation and public spending also have their place,” said Mr Childs.
“But he is still dangerously attracted to pursuing the cheapest, more risky geo-engineering solutions, is putting too much faith in future technologies and RD, and is not giving enough support to the urgent need to reduce current emissions through rapid deployment of existing solutions and behavioural changes.”
Instead of being near the bottom of actions governments should take, as Lomborg argued in 2004, his new book proposes a global carbon tax to raise around $250 billion a year to fight the effects of rising temperatures and sea levels.
The money would be divided between clean energy research and development ($100 billion); low-cost geo-engineering solutions such as reflecting solar energy back into space ($1 billion); and adaptation to the effects of climate change ($50 billion). He further suggests $99 billion of the $250 billion should be held back to spend on traditional development activities such as clean water and healthcare in poor countries.
Benny Peiser, director of the free market climate change thinktank Global Warming Policy Foundation, said his proposals were more sensible than those being negotiated at the UN climate talks.
“I am not surprised. He’s been saying more or less the same for years. The [UN] process is not working at all. This is better and more realistic. His proposals are much more sensible than any attempts to convince China and India to stop emitting,” he said.
Lomborg’s proposals are surprisingly close to those favoured by the governments of industrialised countries who have accepted that $100 billion a year should be made available to poor countries to adapt and that there should be a heavy emphasis on research into clean energy.
However, the idea of a carbon tax has proved politically unacceptable for many years partly because it is thought to penalise poor countries which depend more on carbon-intensive goods.
"We would agree that at least $250 billion should be raised a year to counter climate change," said one developing country analyst who asked not to be named. "But Lomborg seems to be saying that proportionately less money should go to developing countries and more to develop western technology. This looks like being totally unacceptable to most of the world." – ( Guardianservice)