Starting in the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, climate change became the focus of politicians and elites in rich countries. [emphasis, links added]
There is relative peace and trust around the world, widespread economic growth, and rapid progress in eradicating poverty.
Especially in European capitals, it feels like most of the planet's big problems have been solved, so climate change is the final frontier.
These proponents of climate action relish the goal of ending the dependence on fossil fuels that has fueled two centuries of astonishing growth.
Of course, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but there is always more to grow.
What a childish, narrow world view this is.
Time has not been kind to the foolish idea that climate change is humanity’s only problem, or that the planet will come together to solve it.
geopolitical and economic implications A rapid global transition away from fossil fuels is impossible.
As many have long known, most of the world has never been more myopically focused on climate change.
Despite great progress, in some countries life remains a struggle against poverty, hunger and disease.
Employment and growth
In many more countries, including India, the priority is to create more jobs and life-changing growth and development.
Outside the most developed economies, Understandably, climate change has been a relatively low priority issue for voters.
European and American leaders trumpet “net zero” as if it has global support.
But this unity was soon revealed to be a mirage.
On the one hand, the destabilizing axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea will not support Western efforts to address climate change.
In fact, according to McKinsey, Reaching the net-zero emissions target would require Russia to spend $273 billion a year on climate policy – about three times Russia's military spending last year.
That won't happen.
Geopolitical challenges are even more severe.
China's growth depends on burning more coal.
It is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with the largest increase of any country last year.
In 1971, renewable energy accounted for 40% of China's primary energy; as coal use increased, this dropped to 7% by 2011.
Since then, the share of renewable energy has increased slightly to 10%.
Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars a year, undermining its progress toward becoming a wealthy nation.
The reality is that most countries in the world will continue to strive to become richer, often through fossil fuels.
Russia and its ilk will completely ignore climate change concerns.
China will make money by selling Western solar panels and electric cars while only modestly limiting its emissions.
wedges
When rich countries irresponsibly try to export the costs of climate policy to poor countries through carbon taxes, they will further exacerbate a divided world.
Meanwhile, despite the hype, rich countries have less and less money to spend on combating climate change.
Annual per capita growth in rich countries fell from 4% in the 1960s to 2% in the 1990s.
Now it hovers above 1%.
Many of these countries are under pressure to increase spending on defence, health care and infrastructure as geopolitical pressures and changing demographics make their paths to stability and growth more uncertain.
However, in Europe and North America, people born in [the] The relative calm of the 1990s continues to drive deindustrialization and impoverishment in response to climate change—including in the world's emerging economies.
This attempt is doomed to fail, not least because reducing carbon emissions will take decades and require changing the ways of most people.
The economic benefits of strong climate action have always been insufficient – that much is clear today.
More and more politicians are realizing what former UK energy and net-zero emissions minister Claire Coutinho admitted: “You can’t hit climate targets by blaming the costs on struggling households.”
In Europe, voters are already attacking politicians who advocate reducing growth and prosperity in the name of climate change.
Strong climate policies that could cost every American more than $10,000 a year are doomed to fail.
These policies will make it more likely that voters will switch to populist, nationalist leaders who will abandon expensive net-zero emissions targets altogether.
By then, climate policy will be in tatters.
The world needs a better way forward.
The best solution is not to make people's lives worse off by forcing them to transition prematurely from fossil fuels to inadequate green alternatives.
Instead, we should invest more in green innovation, ultimately making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels.
This is much cheaper and will make everyone, including India and other emerging economies, willing to make the switch.
Green innovation
Rich countries need to wake up and stop bleeding trillions of dollars from self-inflicted climate policies A few will follow, and many will laugh at it, but it will mainly make China rich.
Spending a fraction of the climate trillion dollars on green innovation will solve the problem of climate change.
This will allow us to focus our remaining resources on education, defense, health care and many other important challenges of the 21st century.
Bjorn Lomborg is the Chairman of the Copenhagen Consensus, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First”.
To read more, visit the New York Post
