Innovation not global regulation will save the planet

There’s a lot of focus now on the politics of Paris. Will poor countries get the "climate aid" they want? Will China agree to reduce its growth, leaving millions more in poverty, by committing to far-reaching carbon cuts? What will be the wording of the treaty that emerges?

It’s easy to become cynical. Let’s instead take a step back and ask a much more interesting question: what would it take for Paris to succeed? By this, I don’t mean that the delegates manage to sign some kind of treaty. I mean, what would it take for Paris to have a real impact on climate change?

Climate hyperbole abounds. We are being misled about the looming "climate apocalypse," and we’re also misled that a coming green transition will make energy cheaper, societies safer and everyone richer.

We need better information on how to tackle climate change smartly, while ensuring that we have resources to respond to all the other challenges and to invest in growth and development.

2013-05-27

Lomborg fordert Effizienz statt "Feel-Good-Politik"

Der Klimawandel werde derzeit falsch bekämpft, kritisiert der Statistiker Bjørn Lomborg. "Bisherige Lösungsansätze waren wirtschaftlich nicht attraktiv."

Nur mit moralischen Appellen bekomme man den Klimawandel jedoch nicht in den Griff. Er fordert, jährlich 72 Milliarden Euro in die Erforschung alternativer Energien zu stecken. "Dann werden sie in 20 bis 40 Jahren billiger sein als Öl." Das Geld könne aus Staatshaushalten oder einer Kohlendioxidsteuer kommen. "Zurzeit investieren wir nur 1,5 Milliarden."