Climate Policy: Is Bjorn Lomborg ‘assuming a can opener’?

But is Bjorn Lomborg ‘assuming the problem away’, just like the caricatured economist marooned on an island with a can of beans, who, to ‘solve’ his nutritional crisis, ‘assumes a can opener’ (even though, at that stage, he does not have one)?

R&D is an uncertain activity. We don’t know in advance what innovations might prove cost-effective.

Future energy sources delivering Bjorn Lomborg’s outcome must have (i) no (or low) greenhouse gas emissions, and (ii) in operation, be cheaper than current technologies using fossil fuels.

We can’t be absolutely sure such energy sources exist.

Sure, we can assume greater efficiency and lower average emissions from existing processes as technology is refined (albeit at higher cost?).

We can also expect new energy technologies to deliver more efficiency, but a higher cost is also likely.

But can we reasonably expect to unearth the climate quinella: no (or low) emissions technologies that are also lower cost than current fossil fuel technologies? See Figure 1 below for a conceptual illustration of what’s required.

Figure 1

At this stage we don’t know.

It might be possible but it is no lay down misère.

I think Bjorn Lomborg’s assumed new technology emissions reduction frontier (see Figure 1) is an ambitious concept at this stage. I’d like to think he’s right, but I’m not sure, and at present I don’t think anybody can be sure. That’s the nature of R&D.

For that reason, I think a policy that includes appropriate R&D into lower-emissions technology, plus a larger price penalty or incentive to curtail existing emissions (via more efficiency, marginal shifts into lower emissions known technology, and the like) is a better risk management approach.

This approach could also help finance more R&D.

I have not discussed these comments with Bjorn Lomborg. If I have misinterpreted his position, I apologise unreservedly. I also thank him if I have summarized his position fairly, because (again) he’s got me thinking.