When it comes to global warming, talk of treason is in the air

This Friday, world leaders and their entourages will disembark from carbon-spewing jets in New York to sign the world’s costliest climate change treaty. Lit by the flashbulbs of the world’s press and warmed by their sense of accomplishment, these politicians will pat each other on the back and declare a job well done.

The reality is that the so-called “Paris Treaty” is a hugely expensive way of doing very little.

In November, the 26th United Nations Climate Conference (COP26) will set a new global agenda for tackling climate change. The presence of the world's most powerful leaders at COP26 and the elevation of climate change to the top of President Biden's agenda in the United States demonstrate just how seriously many governments and their citizens now take climate change. But what assumptions guide decision-making on climate goals and will new policies produce the right outcomes? Bjorn Lomborg offers a critical perspective on the climate agenda.

In “Solar and wind are viable, not just ‘feel-good’ climate solutions” (Sept. 27), Jim Davidson made a Counterpoint to my recent arguments about green energy (“Feel-good solutions won’t solve climate change,” Sept. 22).

Davidson supports my championing of spending $100 billion a year on green energy R&D. He suggests that this is a new position. But I have in fact advocated it consistently for a decade, including in a front-page article in the British newspaper The Guardian in 2010.