Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Schools: not activist enough | Main | Corals ask: "Ocean acidification? Are we bovvered?" »

The size of the prize Lomborg has a new paper out today in the journal Global Policy. Taking a leaf out of Christopher Monckton's book he assesses the effect that all the policy measures promised at Paris are going to have on global temperatures. As the press release explains this effect is small/tiny/minute/barely discernable:


  • ...if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
  • US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
  • EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
  • China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

Is that another bout of Lomborg derangement syndrome I hear from our green friends?

The paper should appear here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (111)

Regrettably, the link does not work on my computer; I get the following display after clicking on it:

Page Not Found
We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. The page you are looking for might have been removed, changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorley Sutter

So the carbon footprint of holding the global warming party in Paris, is going to exceed the benefits of agreeing to the measures that have already been decided.

Under any definition (apart from FIFA, IAAF, IOC etc), IPPC climate science is not sustainable. What is it about International dopes that attracts so much money, bribery and corruption?

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Excellent article. Be good to see it widely distributed.

However, I would like to observe that Mr Lomborg appears to subscribe to the quaint, old fashioned but endlessly debunked notion that there is a measurable relationship between human activity and global temperature.

I suppose it gives him credibility with the fraud deniers.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:51 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

esmiff; I'm not sure if Lomborg is saying what he means or is being eccenomical with explanation.

The reduction in global temperatures quoted are theoretical only, even if those numbers were the true result, they could never be measured anyway.

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreg Cavanagh

Pertinent question : If humans had stopped all CO2 emissions in 1997 what would be the temperature and key catastrophe indicators be today ?

Would the temperature be significantly lower ?
Would ice measurements be significantly higher ?
Would the ocean be significantly more alkaline ?
Would "extreme weather" events be rarer and smaller in size ?

My understanding with CO2 there is no time lag ..a CO2 molecules greenhouse effect should happen shortly after it is released into the atmosphere. Richard Betts ?

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

Greg Cavanagh

Thanks. I hadn't recognised that (now obvious) fact. I was simply wondering where he got his value for climate sensitivity. Probably from one of those Babbage engine critters.

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:10 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

stewgreen2, under the unwritten rules of climate science, everything would not be as bad as it now. It remains imperative that we take action now, or things will only get worse, than they ever have been before

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I have no difficulty with the overall arguent he presents about the futility (stupidity?) of the obsession with co2 reduction. However In the abstract of the article Bjorn Lomborg says:
‘Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilise the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.’
How can he reconcile that idea with climate, chaotic system as described here?
Atmospheric flows exhibit irregular (chaotic) space-time fluctuations on all scales ranging from climate (kilometres-years) to turbulence (millimetres-second) and is a representative example of turbulent fluid flows. Dynamical systems in nature, i.e., systems that change with time, such as fluid flows, heartbeat patterns, spread of infectious diseases, etc., exhibit non-linear (unpredictable) fluctuations.

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterDouglas

The link to the paper works for me (Bishes link does imply it's coming soon)
.. Bjorn has not put anything about it on his Facebook page yet

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

Today's Telegraph ridiculous artilcle How our megacities will 'slip under the waves' with two degree rise in temperatures ..allow no comments of course.
..Do they think it's April the 1st or something ?

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

The mad cult that shout Denialism are still be given their own articles in the New York Times : see Nov 7th article
..It does allow open comments but it's saturated with namecalling and hate.

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:39 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

"I suppose it gives him credibility with the fraud deniers."

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:51 AM | esmiff"
On the contrary, as the news about him in the past few months makes abundantly clear. He's treated as a complete heretic for, whilst acknowledging CAGW, suggesting we deal with it differently to the Climate Jihadis.

Nov 10, 2015 at 4:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

The thing that is so interesting about this is the light it sheds on the Movement. It has been shown repeatedly that the measures proposed do not in fact achieve the aims which are cited as the reasons for doing them.

In Britain this is very striking. We have first a series of goals in the Climate Change Act, and then we have various measures and proposals which are meant to achieve those goals.

Even if we succeeded in reducing our emissions by 90% from today's levels, which is what the CCA requires, it would have no effect on global temperatures.

This however does not deter The Movement, which seems to think that the force of our example will move the rest of the world to follow suit. Despite the total lack of evidence that anyone pays any attention to our example, and the lack of any publications in the peer reviewed journals to suggest they ever will.

But it then gets worse. Not only will the proposed reductions have no effect on global temperatures (so why are we making them?) but the measures which The Movement advocates so enthusiastically will not make the reductions in the first place. We know by now that wind farms, when fully costed, don't reduce carbon emissions over the same useful delivered electricity supplies as fossil fuel equivalents. We know that when you account for standby evening and night standby power, solar power fully costed will not either.

So we are faced with a movement which advocates doing things to lower our carbon emissions in order to reduce global warming, when the proposals will neither lower our carbon emissions, nor, if they did, do anything to reduce global warming.

And this is assuming the theory is right in the first place. But its important to see that is not the issue. The problem is not that the theory is wrong. The problem is that if it is right, the actions the believers are advocating will be totally ineffective.

Meanwhile, the Movement praises China highly and urges us to follow their example, when the Chinese intention is actually to triple its emissions measured in tons. While lowering them per unit of GDP of course, and still remaining below the US in per capita emissions. This is incomprehensible if people really do believe the theory, but you can read it every other day in the Guardian comments pages and anyone pointing out that the only thing that they are supposed to believe matters is tonnage, and that the Chinese are raising theirs, comes in for a tirade of personal abuse.

It is very difficult to account for how such levels of irrationality and failure to follow simple chains of consequential reasoning can have become so widespread and deeply rooted in public life in Britain. One was tempted to think it was too much literary criticism from all those English degrees, heavily post-modern in orientation. But it seems to have infected people with science and PPE degrees just as much.

This is the real lesson from Lomborg's and others' work on this subject. We are in the middle of a great popular delusion or madness of crowd, and the particular unique thing (to my knowledge) about this one is that those infected first proclaim a pressing danger and then strenously advocate measures which will do nothing about it. I can't think of another case. This time it really is different.

The best guide to the future of the delusion remains 'When Prophecy Fails'. One fears that the longer this goes with no warming, or worse still, if we should experience prolonged cooling, the more ferocious and instransigent the believers will become, and the more strongly they will be committed to their extraordinary policy measures.

Nov 10, 2015 at 7:52 AM | Unregistered Commentermichel

If, according to the Telegraph article, "sea level rise corresponding to 2 C would eventually be 4.7 metres" then, after the 1 degree rise we are supposed to have reached, shouldn't sea level rise be now over 2m? Or does nothing happen until you hit the 2 degrees? These people have no logic.

Nov 10, 2015 at 8:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield


Whatever the nutters and the useful (enviro) idiots believe, this is the main reason every government, every scientist, every science body and every corporation on earth is prepared to lie about global warming.

"Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade

The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.

The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.

The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe".

"London's financial centre is the main home to the incipient global carbon market. Prof Heal believes that in a decade, the trade could be worth trillions of dollars".

Nov 10, 2015 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

What impact will the policy measures promised at Paris have on the the world Economy ,cost thousand of manufacturing jobs in the EU and export our Carbon Footprint and our prosperity to China.Starting with 1500 Redcar British Steel workers.

Nov 10, 2015 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid


Our prosperity started being exported in an eastward direction in the early 1980s when the Thatcher government raised British interest rates to a level such that companies were unable to invest.

Nov 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

When one considers even just for a moment the deeply cynical manipulation by aught and everything interwoven between, energy policy, 'green' anti CO2 legislation and the corporate world, one is left with infinite possibilities and none of it is remotely linked nor, involved to actually: "saving the planet".

We were led up the garden path, think "energy saving light bulbs" - now - Jo and Joanne the name of "saving the poley bears" have to purchase inferior products which cost more and whose life expectancy not quite what it promised on the packet. Crikey, what a swindle was that and Philips and Osram laughed all the way to the bank.

Emissions tests, diesel cars and VW - need I say more?

Biofuels, biomass, Nuclear power and building old kit at vastly inflated [stupid money] prices, MORE whirlygigs, PV cells, feed in tariffs, the carbon floor price et bloody cetera, £$€billions creamed off by investment bankers from the taxpayers - in corporate world, it's wet dream time.

And who TF cares in corporate world - if Britain, its energy policy is regressing the nation and shoving it back to the Stone Age?

Saving the planet? CO₂ is a poison? Politicians, they know what's best for YOU? The corporate world is benign and looks after the interests primarily of the consumer and customer? Are we ****ing mad?

This Paris thing - is a joke but I can't say that I find in any way amusing. NGOs will harangue politicians, there will be the usual "woe and thrice woe! are these Pacific islanders - drowning I say. doomed to drowning, DOOMED and its all your fault!" they screech.

Greenpeace will chug round all day, the press will report the 'drama' Gods and wouldn't yer know it. cue.....huh ecstasy........a last gasp deal will be cobbled by Obola and Hollande.
Thus, Obola's mates in GS and in the corporate world will rub their hands in glee, the taxpayers of the western world will pay and do you know what even if a shiny new CO₂ stitch-up is signed - it will do nothing, nada, zilch will ever accrue, except they'll all agree to screw the taxpayer once more - the following year.

Nov 10, 2015 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Thatcher wasn't the sole cause of the export of jobs, I worked in the British Electronics industry from the early 70s until the 21st century was well under way. It was a classic example of bad management, lack of investment and union intransigence and typical of many British Industries. Thatcher merely cut the death throes short.
I could give you lots of examples of management investing too late and unions making it difficult for it to happen with the net result that the re-war equipment wasn't replaced with anything worthwhile and everyone lost out.

I think Alex Stephens (Stephens Shipyards) is quoted as saying "perhaps I wasn't very good at running a shipyard" in an interview after UCS and that debacle. In my opinion he wasn't alone but one of the few that recognised the fact.

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS


I wouldn't disagree with you b/c they are all valid points. However British money tooled up Japan and Korea, now it's China and India

This is also very important, the withdrawal of government subsidies / support.

In February 1971, in the wake of the emergency nationalisation of Rolls-Royce Limited, the then Conservative government under Edward Heath and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, John Davies, announced a policy that refused further state-support for "lame duck" industries,

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

The thing that's really interesting and extraordinary about this is the irrationality of it >b>in its own terms. The reason is that you cannot get there from here.

Suppose climate sensitivity is very high - 6-8C. In that case catastrophe threatens, and you have to dramatically drop emissions immediately. However, because the sensitivity is very high, the drops have to be almost total, every small amount left will have a large effect, which means they are hugely expensive, and so no-one will sign up to them. You have bought urgency at the cost of practicality.

Lomborg's piece shows very clearly how minimal the reductions are that everyone will sign up to. Except the Stakhanovite UK, which has signed up to 90% reductions, but it was 90% of very little, so it doesn't amount to anything much.

Suppose it to be very low - eg 1.5-2C. In that case, there's no rush to start with. But its worse than this from the perspective of action. The effect of any reductions you do make is very small so they are not cost effective. You have bought practicality at the expense of urgency.

What, one wonders, would get out of this dilemma? It comes from the cost of reducing emissions. This is so high that in the one case the scale of the reductions needed is huge and this makes the costs astronomical. In the other case the cost is still high, so the cost compared to the benefits is still too high.

This is why the 'precautionary principle' and other algorithms that have huge catastrophe cost avoidance at their heart are so popular in the rhetoric. The only way you can get there is either raise the costs of inaction or lower the costs of action.

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered Commentermichel

Some great posts here today, especially by michel and esmiff nailing carbon trading as a motive. Lomborg isn't going to be increasing his popularity in Green LaLa land anytime soon but he's done the rest of us a big favour.

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheshireRed


Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade
But that depends on what you mean by "worth"!
Where is the money coming from and where is it going? What is the "good" that it is being used to purchase? In metal trading there is a metal; in currency trading there is money; in stocks and shares there is the essential financial underpinning which allows a company to continue operating (or sometimes to put the bullet in its brain). But "emissions"? Why are we allowing people to buy and sell hot air?

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:58 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Very timely. Very sharp. Great ouch potential.

You can see why a corrupt and decadent academia in Australia, wedded to CO2 Alarm Propaganda, would want to stop his Institute getting a place amongst them.

I'd like to see it getting a place in the UK.

Nov 10, 2015 at 10:31 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

This could come back to haunt many, especially Australian academics, and their employers. It won't just be climate science departments regretting their dictatorial policies on control. US and UK Universities are also going to demonstrate expertise in academic backstabbing, as climate change chickens are unwelcomed at any roost.

Nov 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


The first of your comments is excellent. I am on the wrong forum for this but can anyone fault the logic? I am no scientist and realise that I am never likely to understand scientific papers debating whether the theory of AGW is wholly or partly right. I am sure though that the obsession with renewables is nothing more than very expensive virtue signalling. How did we get to this point? We seem to be governed in Europe by people who are incapable of reason.

On carbon capture, cynic though I am, I find it hard to believe that Government energy policies are driven by the wish to establish a lucrative business for industry and the City. In a contest between conspiracy and cock-up I think you are more often right if you back cock-up. In any case carbon capture is only the tail on this highly unattractive dog.

In my view wind power has been shown to be next to useless generally and solar is no use in Northern Europe. They will remain useless unless cost effective large scale storage methods are developed. My reading suggests that at present this is pipe dream.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that, ineffectiveness apart, windmills are polluting machines that blight large tracts of landscape. It is grotesque that anyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist can support but they exist in droves - unfortunately.

Nov 10, 2015 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterKestrel27

Michel, Kestrel

Excellent post Michel. The thing is the basic sums behind the total ineffectiveness of all the 'action' are trivial and basic commonsense shows how stupid a lot of it is. As Kestrel puts we seem to have lots of 'virtue signalling' going on..... somewhere along the lines of expending effort to recycle yoghurt pot lids - I somewhat doubt the cost effectiveness of things like.

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton


Michael Mann has a piece of paper that suggests he is a scientist however he publishes papers full of scientifically and statistically illiterate garbage and makes lots of money. Do not run yourself down and just give your opinions and be ready to defend them ^.^

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Michel -

You escape your dilemma with an assumption that the climate impact is a nonlinear function of temperature increase (aka a climate "tipping point") With this magical invention, you can campaign to lower emissions to any convenient level, and avoid the vice grip of your logic. The beauty of this is that the tipping point can be moved around as needed to create maximum damage...

This is why we hear so much about the importance of keeping warming below 2 degrees celcius. problem, 2...problem...what total BS. Plus, if 2 is not working out from a logic / political perspective, what the heck, all we need is a few high priests to comment, and 1.5 is the new tipping point!


Nov 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames

The UN reckons the difference will be much greater. On Oct 30 the BBC quoted UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres as saying that INDC Submissions would constain warming to 2.7C by 2100, as against 4C+ without policy.
That is >1.3°C, as against Lomberg's 0.048°C. The reasons in descending order of importance, I would guess are.
- UN assumes further policy changes post 2030 that few countries have proposed, so whilst in 2030 emissions will be 10-20% higher than in 2010, by 2030 they will be significantly lower.
- UN assumes all policy proposals will be carried out in full. Including in the EU or the USA?
- UN BAU scenario is a bit high.

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

This maybe comes from the self-defeating argument that CO2 has a huge effective residence time therefore nothing we do will make much difference. Alas it gives wings to those who want to stick up artificial trees to actively remove the CO2.

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I wonder if our politicians have revised the Climate Change Act in the light of the new lower UNEP 2020 target?

UN report raises ceiling for greenhouse gas pollution, calls previous assessments unrealistic

"....The U.N.'s environmental authority has quietly raised its assessment of the level at which global greenhouse gas emissions must peak to avoid dangerous climate change, as governments seek a new accord to fight global warming.

In its first four annual emissions reports in 2010-2013, the United Nations Environment Program said emissions must not exceed 44 billion tons in 2020 for the world to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).

But with real-world emissions rising far beyond that level, UNEP has since last year downplayed its focus on 2020 as a make-or-break year for emissions reductions.

In this year's Emissions Gap report, a summary of which was released Friday, UNEP says the world can still reach the 2-degree target with emissions of 52 billion tons by 2020, which is just slightly below today's level........."

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:54 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

"credibility with the fraud deniers"

He has to phrase it in terms they understand.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:03 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Another thing about Climate Change Act - It was all written before the economic meltdown. The effects of this meltdown are still with us today, not least in terms of national debt and deficit. So should we have to stick by Act's near term targets for 2020, pretending that economic meltdown never happened? Yes we do, say the green zealots, and are 'friends' in the EU will hammer us with financial penalties if we don't. Utter madness.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterCB

"Climate Change Act....written before the economic meltdown"

And before the bust of the peak oil theory.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Nov 10, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I am a denier of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for long periods. If a man is living on meagre rations for a week and is then confronted with a delicious meal, he does not leave it for a year or two, I suspect vegetation has a similar attitude. The greening of desert and the improved crop yield suggest instant take up of CO2 as soon as we start pumping out additional amounts.

Nov 10, 2015 at 1:57 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Spot on Dung.

The greening of desert and the improved crop yield suggest instant take up of CO2 as soon as we start pumping out additional amounts.
If it were otherwise those tomato greenhouses where high levels of CO2 are pumped in would not work - they would just fill up with excess CO2.
My mission, when it comes to warmists is to get them to explain how the CO2 control knob works. I shall be plesed to pint them at Bjorn's post here.

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Kevin Marshall:

That is >1.3°C, as against Lomberg's 0.048°C. The reasons in descending order of importance, I would guess are.[...]
Nah. None of those, Kevin. The thing is, Figueres et al don't give a stuff about the theory. I'm sure they know it's a crock of....and they know that any remedial actions will count for nothing. However, they will encourage the carbon trade etc and then, when the temp (naturally) fails to hit +4 Deg they will claim that that is all down to them and their foresight - so they'll just demand more of the same. They don't need no stinking hypothesis.

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Slightly off subject, but equally relevant.

With the latest IPCC jamboree on the horizon, the BBC (predictably) ramp up the 'latest' evidence of proof of impending doom. Naturally it is more of the same old same old!

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterYertizz

Harry Passfield, warmist CO2 control knobs work by publishing misleading articles on climate science.

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

his is also very important, the withdrawal of government subsidies / support.

In February 1971, in the wake of the emergency nationalisation of Rolls-Royce Limited, the then Conservative government under Edward Heath and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, John Davies, announced a policy that refused further state-support for "lame duck" industries,

Nov 10, 2015 at 9:33 AM | esmiff
By "government subsidies/support", esmiff of course means "taxpayer subsidies/support". Let's be precise eh? The government has non money other than that which it takes of us, and off those not yet born.

Nov 10, 2015 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

So true Harry P.
You only get prizes for being politically correct not factually correct. Proving that there is no problem to solve just gets you defunded. By contrast, finding something unprecedented - bogus or not - brings front-page fame, promotion and speaking engagements. The bigger the lie, the bigger the payback and with the certain knowledge that journalists have the collective memory of a flea and fanboy zealots will argue black is white (or up is down) to defend you. Meantime the real crisis 100% caused by the scare of the fake crisis looms ever closer. It's a post-normal world!

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Why do these clowns still persist in producing numbers for "predicted" global temperature to three decimal places, when we can't seriously measure it to one place of decimal with any (excuse the pun) degree of certainty?

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

I won't argue about stuff like his because they can lie with impunity.

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Size of the prize indeed:

The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate recommends that all developed and emerging economies, and others where possible, commit to introducing or strengthening carbon pricing by 2020, and should phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

Governments should integrate carbon pricing into broader fiscal reform strategies, prioritising the use of resulting revenues to offset impacts on low-income households and for other productive uses such as reducing other distortionary taxes.

G20 governments or coalitions of willing governments should work together to enhance efficiency and minimise competitiveness concerns, building on existing peer-review processes and reporting annually on progress.
All major businesses should adopt internal carbon prices and actively support carbon pricing policy.

A carbon price in 2030 of US$75 per tonne of CO2e in developed countries and US$35 per tonne of CO2e in developing countries, on average, could see annual emissions in 2030 reduced by 2.8–5.6 Gt of CO2e.

About this working paper
This New Climate Economy Working Paper was written as a supporting document for the 2015 report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate;
Seizing the Global Opportunity: Partnerships for Better Growth and a Better Climate.

It reflects the research conducted for Section 2.5 of the full report and is part of a series of 10 Working Papers.
It reflects the recommendations made by the Global Commission.


Nov 10, 2015 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Something which deserved a bit more publicity than it seemed to have got is a series of pre-Paris talks/discussions at the Cato Institute on 30th October.

The first panel, on the science was probably the least interesting (to me) because of the familiarity with the subject matter. I found the later panels considering the legal and technical aspects of what to expect was the most interesting, and Richard Tol's talk was the most enjoyable. Many of the discussions are from a US viewpoint but it all seems relevant.

Nov 10, 2015 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Lomborg may have the magnitude of the effect of suppressing the greening gas about right or still too big.

As anyone who really groks classical physics should come to realize , spectral phenomena cannot "trap" energy . The bottoms of atmospheres are warmer than there tops by the easily calculated difference in the gravitational energy .

Our surface temperature has more to do with the molecular weight of CO2 than its spectrum which at any life sustaining levels has only a minuscule effect on our spectrum as seen from the outside which determines our radiative balance with the outside .

Nov 10, 2015 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBob Armstrong

compare with variation of temperatures in giec reports...

Nov 10, 2015 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterlemiere

not banned yet, the Russians are getting annoyed about questions being asked about the prizes they won in London 2012.

In a tit for tat response, they might ask more questions about prizes and attributions in climate science.

Bribery and corruption in football and sport generates huge amounts of media and public interest, but the media seem quite happy with climate science, thinking the IPCC is a good independent referee.

Nov 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

James -

Very true!

Nov 10, 2015 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichel

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>