PDF Summary:False Alarm, by Bjørn Lomborg

According to progressive media and politicians, climate change constitutes an existential threat to humanity, requiring drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions to avoid catastrophe. However, Bjørn Lomborg argues that, while climate change poses a significant threat, it’s not cataclysmic.

In his 2020 book, False Alarm, Lomborg concedes that climate change will have a notable impact if left unchecked. However, he argues that climate activists’ proposed approaches, like sharply reducing fossil fuel consumption, have unintended economic costs that must be balanced with the effects of climate change alone. Instead, Lomborg outlines several more modest recommendations that, he claims, represent the best approach to climate change.

In this guide, we’ll discuss Lomborg’s arguments about the impact of climate change, along with his assessments of unsuccessful approaches to climate change and his suggestions for alternatives. We’ll also examine counterarguments from climate scientists and discuss some real-world implications of Lomborg’s arguments.

(continued)...

The Green Revolution

Another approach depends on an imminent green revolution, in which renewables like solar and wind will supplant fossil fuels, reducing carbon emissions to zero. Lomborg, however, argues that the green revolution is an unattainable fantasy.

First, Lomborg points out that renewables are currently responsible for 11% of energy in the US, with projections estimating we’ll be at 16% by midcentury. These numbers, he argues, don’t suggest a pending revolution.

(Shortform note: Since False Alarm’s publication in 2020, the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) projections have shifted slightly: In 2022, they projected that renewables will account for 20% of US energy usage by 2050. While 20% still doesn’t sound revolutionary, it’s a notable increase from the projections that Lomborg cites.)

In addition, Lomborg argues that renewables, such as solar panels, can’t provide enough energy to lift poor societies out of poverty. As evidence, he points to the Fijian city of Rukua, which tried to transition solely to solar energy. Ultimately, the solar grid could only power three refrigerators at once, causing widespread failure. Solar panels, he claims, can’t be our main source of energy.

(Shortform note: According to some experts, deeming solar energy insufficient is part of a wider trend of underestimating solar energy. However, while researchers agree that the Rukuan solar grid was unsuccessful, they argue that this wasn’t necessarily because solar energy was insufficient. Rather, they claim that the Japanese company responsible for the solar grid failed to communicate with the village, creating a solar grid that wasn’t attuned to its specific needs. Further, they argue that a tragedy of the commons occurred, where villagers used more than their fair share of electricity, leading to the solar grid’s failure.)

Indeed, even wealthy countries suffer from increased reliance on renewables. For example, Lomborg cites the German Energiewende, an energy policy moving away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. On top of costing $36 billion annually, the Energiewende has led to electric costs of 35¢ per kilowatt, triple the US average. Financial costs like these make it nearly impossible to transition entirely to renewables, even in wealthy societies.

(Shortform note: Though critics point to the Energiewende to criticize transitions to renewables, other experts argue that similar policies can avoid its shortcomings in other countries. The Energiewende phased out nuclear energy and switched to renewables when they were too expensive relative to fossil fuels, but experts suggest that other countries don’t have to repeat these mistakes.)

The Paris Agreement

To spark the green revolution, world leaders took a more concrete approach to climate change via the Paris Agreement. Participating countries promised to reduce carbon emissions, with a goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 3.6°F by 2100. Lomborg, however, argues that the Paris Agreement does more harm than good.

(Shortform note: In light of concerns over the Paris Agreement, the US withdrew from the agreement in 2020, three years after President Donald Trump first announced his decision to withdraw in 2017. However, this absence was short-lived, as the US rejoined the climate accord shortly after President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021.)

First, Lomborg examines the four entities whose promised carbon reductions amount to 80% of the total reductions outlined in the Paris Agreement: the US, the EU, China, and Mexico. By using Stanford University’s Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), Lomborg estimates the following costs if these countries keep their promises:

• The US’s promise to cut emissions 26% by 2025 will cost between $154 and $172 billion annually.
• The EU’s promise to cut emissions 40% by 2030 will cost $322 billion annually.
• China’s promise to reduce carbon intensity—the percentage of carbon emitted per dollar in the economy—60% by 2030 will cost $200 billion annually.
• Mexico’s promise to reduce 40% of carbon emissions by 2030 will cost $80 billion annually.

Collectively, this amounts to about $739 billion annually. Because these countries represent 80% of promised carbon reductions, Lomborg assumes that $739 billion is about 80% of the total annual cost of the Paris Agreement. So, its annual cost is around $1 trillion.

(Shortform note: Lomborg also considers another assessment, where the Paris Agreement costs twice as much—$2 trillion annually—because countries implement inefficient climate policies. However, others have argued that it’s illegitimate for Lomborg to simply double projections to strengthen his argument. To avoid this criticism, we’ll focus on his assessment of the model’s actual predictions.)

To see whether the benefits of the Paris Agreement justify the costs, Lomborg cites projections from the UN, which found that—if countries all kept their promises—there would be 64 fewer gigatons, or 64 billion fewer tons, of CO₂ in the atmosphere by 2030. Because the UN estimates that temperature will rise 0.8°F for every 1,000 gigatons, Lomborg reasons that the Paris Agreement could reduce global temperature by 0.05°F.

If countries extended their commitments to 2100, however, Lomborg concedes that we would remove 540 gigatons of CO₂ from the atmosphere, causing a 0.4°F reduction in temperature. But, because temperature is expected to rise 7.4°F by 2100, this reduction still means it would actually rise 7°F—nowhere near the stated goal of 3.6°F.

(Shortform note: Climate scientists from the UN generally agree that the Paris Agreement won’t reach its goal of 3.6°F, even if countries meet their promises. However, the UN’s 2022 report disputes Lomborg’s claim that temperatures will rise 7°F by 2100 under the Paris Agreement. Rather, the report found that temperatures are expected to rise between 3.8°F and 5.2°F by 2100. So, Lomborg’s predictions aren’t universally agreed upon.)

Consequently, Lomborg concludes the Paris Agreement is ineffective; even if every country kept its promises, it would yield minuscule progress, while costing $1 trillion per year.

Individual Sacrifice

In addition to international agreements, climate activists exhort us to make individual sacrifices—like eating less meat, flying less often, and turning off unused lights. Lomborg, however, argues that these exhortations are flawed: Individual sacrifices do nearly nothing to combat climate change.

To provide a metric for assessing individual sacrifices, Lomborg uses prices set by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the US’s main carbon marketplace. RGGI limits power plants’ emissions by issuing limited emissions authorizations, costing $6 per ton of CO2.

(Shortform note: RGGI allowances are initially sold via auctions, where power plants bid on allowances, which are then distributed from high to low bids until they run out of allowances. Consequently, the price of RGGI allowances isn’t fixed. Rather, they can be as low as $2.38, or as high as $13 per allowance. Lomborg’s $6 figure is roughly the standard price of an allowance.)

In theory, individuals can cut one ton of carbon emissions by purchasing an RGGI allowance for $6, then not using the authorization—since each authorization that you purchase represents one ton of CO₂ emissions that power plants can’t purchase or release into the atmosphere. In turn, Lomborg uses the price of RGGI allowances—$6 per ton of CO₂—to evaluate three individual sacrifices: going vegetarian, using electric cars, and not having kids.

First, climate activists suggest that going vegetarian drastically decreases our carbon footprint. However, Lomborg cites studies suggesting that going vegetarian decreases our carbon emissions by only 4.3% per year, on average—about 1,200 pounds of CO₂ annually. Since RGGI allows us to purchase one ton of carbon emissions for $6, this means going vegetarian is worth about $3.50 each year.

(Shortform note: Although switching to a vegetarian diet decreases our average carbon footprint, experts caution that some vegetarian foods are still responsible for high carbon emissions. For example, because asparagus is imported to the UK from Peru, Britons are responsible for 5 kilograms of CO₂ per kilogram of asparagus—greater than the average carbon emissions from chicken or pork.)

Similarly, activists suggest that switching to electric cars will vastly cut emissions. Challenging this claim, Lomborg notes that electric cars often use electricity generated by fossil fuels, and producing them requires more energy than producing gas-powered cars. Weighing the emissions reduction against the energy demands, the International Energy Agency estimates that switching from gas-powered to electric cars cuts eight tons of emissions over the cars’ lifetime. Per RGGI, this is worth about $48.

(Shortform note: Because certain countries rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity, the carbon emissions of electric vehicles varies by country. For example, one report finds that in countries that use coal to generate electricity, electric vehicles are no more carbon-friendly than hybrid vehicles. However, this means that as countries decarbonize their sources of electricity, the environmental benefits of electric vehicles will increase.)

Further, activists claim that choosing not to fly is crucial to mitigate climate change. Though this point has some merit, Lomborg notes that studies suggest temperature would be only 0.05°F lower by 2100 if we grounded all flights for the next 80 years. In other words, if nobody flew the rest of the century, we’d slow climate change by about one year. And although Lomborg doesn’t assess this sacrifice via RGGI, his point is clear: Choosing not to fly isn’t effective in the fight against climate change.

(Shortform note: In 2018, the Swedish movement flygskam—flight shame—rose to popularity, with activists like Greta Thunberg imploring us to stop flying to mitigate climate change. This movement reflects recent trends, especially in Europe; one 2019 poll found that over 20% of Europeans surveyed had recently cut back on flying.)

Finally, some activists suggest we should stop having children, since they generate enormous amounts of CO₂ over their lifetimes. Lomborg admits that one person generates an average of 15 tons of CO₂ per year, so children that live to 90 generate 1,350 tons over their lives. Per RGGI, this costs about $8,100. But, Lomborg argues that isn’t enough reason to stop having children, because it doesn’t consider the benefits of children alongside the cost. Since the benefits are immense, he claims they outweigh the $8,100 cost.

(Shortform note: In Under the Sky We Make, climate scientist Kimberly Nicholas agrees that we shouldn’t stop having children to mitigate climate change. However, her reasoning differs from Lomborg. Because children mostly generate carbon emissions in the distant future, and Nicholas thinks we only have until 2030 to avoid climate catastrophe, she concludes that not having children won’t actually help us avoid this catastrophe.)

In light of all these considerations, Lomborg concludes that emphasis on individual sacrifice is an ineffective approach to climate change.

Promising Approaches to Climate Change

Despite the abundance of misguided approaches to climate change, Lomborg argues that there are more promising approaches available. In this section, we’ll discuss his proposals, moving from broader strategies to more specific policy initiatives.

Fund Innovation

In the past, Lomborg asserts that we often solved problems via innovation—developing new approaches rather than relying on old ones. The same, he argues, is true of climate change: We should invest in innovative solutions to climate change. In particular, he advocates for innovative approaches to energy storage, nuclear energy, carbon capture technology, and geoengineering.

First, Lomborg notes that solar and wind energy are constrained by the weather: Solar panels only generate energy when the sun shines, and wind turbines only generate energy when the wind blows. If we could efficiently store this energy, wind and solar could play a larger part in our energy usage. Presently, however, this storage is prohibitively expensive—adding storage to solar panels more than triples their cost. For this reason, Lomborg concludes that investing in developing new energy storage solutions could yield high returns.

Pumped-Storage Hydroelectricity: An Old Solution to Energy Storage

Presently, the majority of energy storage occurs via pumped-storage hydroelectricity—a process where we pump water into an uphill reservoir, and later release the water downhill, where it goes through turbines to generate electricity. Because we can use solar and wind energy to pump the water uphill, pumped hydroelectricity can “store” solar and wind energy. Indeed, one study found that it can retain 71-85% of the energy initially used to pump the water uphill.

Lomborg rejects pumped hydroelectricity as a primary source of energy storage, because most energy networks aren’t near two large reservoirs of water at different altitudes. However, others have proposed building artificial reservoirs of water, to make pumped storage more widely available. For example, the Eagle Mountain project in California is attempting to convert abandoned mining pits into water reservoirs, making pumped storage possible despite a lack of natural water reservoirs. So, it’s possible that expanding the old method of pumped-storage hydroelectricity could mitigate current energy storage problems.

Second, Lomborg argues that investing in nuclear energy is promising, since it emits no CO₂ and poses far fewer health risks than coal, which is a dangerous pollutant. But, because there’s no uniform blueprint and each nuclear power plant is custom built, the cost of building them is high. So, investing in uniform, streamlined designs could yield outsized returns; Lomborg even cites a 2019 study suggesting this investment could cut costs of nuclear energy by two-thirds.

(Shortform note: Beyond providing a source of clean energy, investing in nuclear energy could also spark economic growth by creating new jobs. Indeed, while it’s currently responsible for half a million jobs in the US, expanding the nuclear industry would create even more new positions.)

Third, Lomborg suggests we should invest in technology that captures CO₂ in the atmosphere and stores it elsewhere. This technology is similar to what trees do: They absorb CO₂, reducing atmospheric carbon emissions. Admittedly, current technology is too expensive—Lomborg points to one 2011 study that found capturing one ton of CO₂ would cost $600. For this reason, however, we should invest in researching how to drive down costs.

(Shortform note: CO₂ air capture is beginning to play a larger role in climate change mitigation. For example, in 2021 the Swiss company Climeworks constructed a facility, called Orca, which is designed to remove 4,000 tons of CO2 annually via direct air capture. In 2022, they announced plans for an even larger facility, called Mammoth, which is designed to remove 36,000 tons of CO2 annually.)

Finally, Lomborg proposes that we should invest heavily in geoengineering, the process of artificially reducing the earth’s temperature. In particular, he recommends two forms of geoengineering. First, he recommends “stratospheric aerosol injection,” where we inject chemicals into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. Second, he recommends “marine cloud brightening,” a process that increases salt particles above the ocean to create clouds with tinier water droplets, making them denser and whiter. Because these clouds are whiter, they reduce temperatures by reflecting more sunlight back into space.

(Shortform note: While Lomborg focuses on geoengineering techniques involving chemicals that reflect sunlight into the atmosphere, other experts consider CO2 air capture—removing CO2 out of the atmosphere—a form of geoengineering. So, although Lomborg views air capture technology as innovation, it could likewise fall under geoengineering.)

Lomborg suggests that we should fund research in both of these areas. His reasons are threefold:

1. Geoengineering is cost effective: Research for Lomborg’s think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, suggests that creating a fleet of boats that spray salt water would cost $9 billion, and could nullify the projected temperature increase for this century.
2. We need to understand the risks: Because rogue billionaires might fund geoengineering on their own, we should research it to discover and avoid unexpected harms.
3. It could quickly decrease temperatures: Like volcanic eruptions, geoengineering can reduce temperature significantly in the course of weeks.

Admittedly, Lomborg recognizes that we aren’t yet ready to implement geoengineering. But, in light of these three reasons, he concludes that geoengineering deserves further research.

Potential Harms of Geoengineering

While geoengineering has gained traction among scientists, others advise that there are manifold reasons why we should treat it with caution. For example, scientists expect that some forms of geoengineering, like stratospheric aerosol injection, will further deplete the earth’s ozone level. Moreover, other forms of geoengineering could disturb oceanic ecosystems by increasing the ocean’s acidity.

Because we can’t easily remove aerosol injections from the atmosphere, these consequences would be difficult to reverse if geoengineering occurs—potentially exposing us to unexpected consequences that are irreversible. However, this supports Lomborg’s proposal for researching geoengineering; we can only determine the effects of geoengineering through in-depth research.

Invest in Adaptation

Because CO₂ in the atmosphere is also a product of past emissions, which we can’t control, innovation won’t stop climate change entirely. Consequently, Lomborg argues that we need to adapt to climate change over the coming century. And though Lomborg discusses various adaptations, we’ll focus on three key ones: adapting to rising sea levels, river flooding, and heat waves.

To start, Lomborg grants that rising temperatures will lead to rising sea levels, placing coastal territories at risk. However, we can meet these rising sea levels with adaptation. For instance, we can build dikes—coastal walls to stop flooding—or pursue artificial nourishment—adding sand to coasts to combat rising sea levels. According to Lomborg, one 2019 cost-benefit analysis found that dikes save $40 per dollar spent, while artificial nourishment saves $111.

(Shortform note: Instead of artificial defenses, like constructing dikes, other experts propose so-called “living shorelines'' as an alternative approach to rising sea levels. In short, living shorelines are combinations of natural organisms and materials tailored to specific coasts. For instance, shores with tame waters can benefit from salty marshes, which combat rising sea levels by absorbing large amounts of water.)

In a similar vein, climate change could increase the risk of river flooding in some areas. To handle flooding, Lomborg recommends various strategies. For example, we could follow suit with Holland, creating floodplains that we let flood to avoid damage to cities. Or, we could invest in more vegetated areas in cities that better absorb water. These investments, Lomborg argues, have promising returns: FEMA found that each dollar spent on flood mitigation would save $6 in damages.

(Shortform note: In addition to creating floodplains, the Netherlands also began widening rivers prone to flooding in 2012 to provide more room for excess water. By constructing dikes nearly 400 meters further inland, they created a new channel for the Waal river to mitigate the risk of flooding. The project’s cost-benefit analysis predicts savings to surpass $295 million.)

Finally, Lomborg notes that heat waves will likely worsen in cities, which contain heat-absorbing asphalt and lack cooling features, like water areas. Because black roofs and asphalt increase temperature, he recommends a simple adaptation—painting roofs and roads with light-colored coatings. According to one model, this could decrease summer temperatures by several degrees in certain cities.

(Shortform note: Because cool roofs reduce temperatures inside buildings as well, they reduce energy usage by decreasing the need for air conditioning. Consequently, they aren’t just an adaptation to climate change, but also a direct way to mitigate it.)

Although they don’t reduce carbon emissions, Lomborg argues that these adaptations would affordably mitigate the effects of rising temperatures. So, investing in adaptation is an appropriate response to climate change.

Cultivate Economic Growth

Investments in innovation and adaptation lessen the impact of climate change, but many countries lack the funds to make this investment. Consequently, Lomborg argues that creating economic growth in poor countries is itself a promising climate policy.

Concrete Strategies to Stimulate Economic Growth

Lomborg doesn’t offer many actionable strategies for cultivating economic growth in impoverished countries. Especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, which damaged economies in many developing countries, such actionables are crucial. To that end, experts recommend a variety of approaches to foster growth, such as:

• Invest in training civil servants, like government clerks and regulators. This improves the public sector by creating more competent public employees.

• Decrease regulatory and tax barriers that companies have to navigate. This allows businesses to increase efficiency and production more easily.

• Open up markets to international trade. This encourages more sales and purchases, leading to increased economic growth.

• Fund schools that teach basic skills, like literacy and mental math. This increases average cognitive ability, which is correlated strongly with income as an adult.

As a case study, Lomborg considers two countries: the Netherlands and Bangladesh. These countries are similarly susceptible to flooding—67% of the Netherlands is vulnerable to floods, compared with 60% of Bangladesh. Yet, because Bangladesh is impoverished, flooding is far more destructive there than in the wealthy Netherlands.

To show as much, Lomborg observes that after a flood killed 1,800 citizens in 1953, the Netherlands invested $11 billion in Delta Works—a series of dams and barriers to combat flooding. Since then, they’ve only seen three floods and one fatality from flooding.

Conversely, floods still decimate Bangladesh: Lomborg notes that in 2019, floods displaced 200,000 Bangladeshi. Since Bangladesh lacks funding to combat flooding, it suffers more than the Netherlands, despite being similarly susceptible to flooding. If its economy were more prosperous, Lomborg claims Bangladesh would better adapt to this flooding.

(Shortform note: In 2022, the Bangladeshi government is expected to approve a National Adaptation Plan, implementing policy initiatives that are designed to increase resilience to flooding. For example, the plan involves improving early warning systems for flash floods, while also encouraging joint river basin management with neighboring countries. Between 2023-2050, the plan is expected to cost $230 billion, though donations from global climate funds cover much of that investment.)

According to Lomborg, the points above lead to a general conclusion: Wealthy countries can better cope with climate change, while poor countries are disproportionately harmed. Therefore, sparking economic growth in poor countries—even at the cost of increasing carbon emissions—is a promising approach to climate change.

(Shortform note: Experts agree that climate change disproportionately affects poor countries. Consequently, some have gone beyond Lomborg’s recommendation of sparking economic growth and argued that wealthy countries should provide direct financial support for sustainable development in such countries. This financial assistance, they argue, will yield high returns on investment from the climate change it prevents down the road.)

Implement a Global Carbon Tax

Beyond general strategies, Lomborg also endorses specific policies about climate change. In particular, he argues that we should implement a global carbon tax—a tax that offsets the carbon emissions of the goods we buy. For example, we would pay a tax on Amazon packages proportionate to the carbon emitted in production and delivery.

(Shortform note: Although we haven’t yet implemented a global carbon tax, the European Union (EU) successfully implemented a carbon tax on its constituents. This tax even applies to imported goods; manufacturers that import products to EU countries must pay a fee equal to the carbon tax that domestic producers pay. So, there’s already precedent for a successful international carbon tax.)

According to Lomborg, a carbon tax is necessary to correct market failure. Put simply, market failure occurs whenever we inefficiently distribute goods or services—in other words, whenever the market doesn’t reflect inconspicuous costs of certain products. For instance, market failure occurs if the cost to buy a pack of cigarettes doesn’t reflect the pollution they create.

Similarly, Lomborg asserts that market failure is occurring because prices don’t reflect the carbon emissions created by many products. For example, when we purchase beef, prices reflect the cost of rearing the cow, packaging the beef, and shipping it to a deli. But they don’t reflect the carbon emissions created via this process. A carbon tax would correct this failure.

(Shortform note: Although a carbon tax can correct market failure, cap-and-trade programs provide an alternative approach, in which governments sell a limited number of carbon emissions to the highest bidders. Because consumers can simply pay the carbon tax indefinitely, whereas cap-and-trade systems allow for a finite number of allowances, proponents of cap-and-trade systems note that they provide more certainty about the amount of carbon emissions. However, because cap-and-trade programs use auctions to distribute allowances, they provide less certainty about the cost of those emissions.)

To determine the ideal carbon tax, Lomborg returns to DICE, which predicted that climate change will cost 3.6% of GDP—$140 trillion—by 2100. He concludes the optimal carbon tax would reduce temperature from 7.4°F to 6.75°F. Although this tax would cost about $20 trillion to implement, it reduces the cost of climate change from $140 trillion to just over $100 trillion. In other words, it would save us $22 trillion overall.

(Shortform note: In 2020, other researchers argued that DICE, which grounds Lomborg’s predictions, inaccurately accounted for climate damages. After adjusting for these alleged inaccuracies, they found that the Paris Agreement’s original goal—3.6°F—aligned with the economically optimal approach to climate change. So, the ideal carbon tax could be higher than Lomborg suggests.)