From the Fraser Institute

APPEARED IN THE FINANCIAL POST

By: Bjørn Lomborg

Canada’s chattering classes claim that climate change is one of the country’s pre-eminent threats. This is extraordinary. Canada is experiencing a productivity slowdown, the worst decline in living standards in 40 years, and growth rates that lag most developed economies. Geopolitical threats loom, the healthcare system is under stress and education is faltering. Yet the federal government has spent or committed more than $160 billion on climate initiatives since 2015, and is funneling $5.3 billion to help poor countries respond to climate change.

Like most nations, Canada faces tough decisions in coming decades. Resources spent on climate will not be not available for health, education, security or boosting prosperity.

Global warming is a real problem. Science has shown quite clearly that more CO₂, mostly from fossil fuel use, increases global temperatures. Climate economics has shown how this brings both problems and benefits (for instance, more deaths caused by heat, fewer by cold) but, overall, more problems than benefits. More CO₂ means higher social costs, so reducing CO₂ does have real benefits.

But climate policies also have costs. They force families and businesses to use more expensive energy, which slows economic growth. You might have heard otherwise but if the new ways really were cheaper, no regulations or mandates would be needed.

If climate change were treated like any other political issue, we would openly recognize these trade-offs and try to balance them to get the most climate benefits for the least cost, recognizing that climate policies need to compete against many other worthy policies.

But in two important ways the climate conversation has gone off the rails.

First, people say — wrongly — that global warming is an existential challenge, risking the end of mankind. Of course, if the world is about to end, it follows that any spending is justified. After all, if a world-obliterating meteor is hurtling towards us, we don’t ask about the costs of avoiding it.

Second, it is also often claimed — somewhat contradictorily — that the green transition will make energy cheaper, societies safer and everyone richer. In this “rainbows and unicorns” scenario, there are no trade-offs and we can afford climate policy and everything else.

Both claims are repeated ad nauseam by Canadian politicians and activists and spread by media hooked on selling climate catastrophes and green utopias. But both are quite untrue.

That is why I’m writing this series. I will outline how many of the most sensationalist, scary climate stories are misleading or wrong and ignore the best climate science. Being data-driven, I will show you this with the best peer-reviewed data and numbers.

So: Is climate change the world’s all-encompassing problem today? One way to test this is to look at extreme weather, which we constantly hear is having an ever-larger impact on our societies. But the data paint a very different picture (see chart).

We have good evidence for the number of people killed in climate-related disasters, i.e., floods, storms, droughts, and fires. (We’ll look at temperature deaths next week.) A century ago, such disasters routinely killed hundreds of thousands, even millions of people in a single disaster. On average, about half a million people a year died in such disasters. Since then, the death toll has declined precipitously. The last decade saw an average of fewer than 10,000 deaths per year, a decline of more than 97 per cent.

Of course, over the past century the world’s population has quadrupled, which means the risk per person has dropped even more, and is now down by more than 99 per cent. Why this great success story? Because richer, more resilient societies with better technology and forecasting are much better able to protect their citizens. That doesn’t mean there is no climate signal at all, but rather that technology and adaptation entirely swamp its impact.

In the same way, climate’s impact on overall human welfare is also quite small. In proportion to the total economy, the cost of climate-related disasters has been declining since 1990. Looking to the future, the best estimates of the total economic impact of climate change come from two major meta-studies by two of the most respected climate economists. Each shows that end-of-century GDP, instead of being 350 per cent higher, will only be 335 per cent higher.

“Only” becoming 335 per cent richer is a problem, to be sure, but not an existential threat. Despite that, as this series will show, many of the most draconian climate policy proposals so casually tossed around these days will do little to fix climate but could dramatically lower future growth and the opportunities of future generations.

We need to get smart on climate. This series will map out how.

Bjørn Lomborg

MxM News

Quick Hit:

In a recent op-ed for RealClearEnergy, Benjamin Dierker argues that carbon emissions will decrease under the administration of President Donald Trump, despite criticism from environmentalists. Dierker points to historical trends and the potential for innovation as key factors. He contends that reducing government regulation and embracing performance-based incentives will lead to more efficient and cleaner energy solutions.

Key Details:

• In his first week back in office, President Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord, removed restrictions on LNG exports, and boosted the hydrocarbon industry, prompting environmentalists to warn of climate setbacks.

• Dierker predicts that by 2030, these moves will result in lower carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased innovation.

• He argues that historical data shows U.S. carbon emissions have been declining since peaking in 2005-2007, largely due to the shift from coal to natural gas.

Diving Deeper:

Benjamin Dierker, writing for RealClearEnergy, challenges conventional environmental narratives by predicting a decline in carbon emissions under President Donald Trump’s administration. In his op-ed, “Why Carbon Emissions Will Fall Under Trump,” Dierker cites historical trends and advances in innovation as reasons why emissions will decrease despite the administration’s pro-hydrocarbon policies.

Dierker highlights Trump’s early actions, including exiting the Paris Climate Accord, lifting LNG export restrictions, and promoting hydrocarbon development in Alaska and across the U.S. These moves have drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists who argue that rolling back regulations will result in higher emissions and environmental degradation. However, Dierker argues the opposite, stating, “I believe that by 2030, the impact of this administration will be less carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. The simple reason: innovation.”

Pointing to historical context, Dierker notes that while U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew for a century, they peaked between 2005 and 2007 and have since been declining. He attributes this decrease not to international climate agreements but to technological advancements, particularly hydraulic fracturing and the increased use of natural gas. According to Dierker, “The story of the 21st Century to date has been more efficient energy resources displacing less efficient ones.”

Dierker challenges the notion that economic growth inherently leads to more emissions, noting that between 2000 and 2020, the U.S. population grew by nearly 20%, while annual CO2 emissions fell by 20%. He attributes this to enhanced efficiency and technological progress, emphasizing that “serving this larger population with new power, water, internet, and roadways was more efficient over time, not necessitating greater emissions.”

Dierker also argues that Trump’s focus on deregulation will not lead to increased pollution, as critics suggest. He explains that many businesses have already made capital-intensive investments in clean and efficient technologies that they are unlikely to abandon simply because regulations are removed. He contends, “The technology and assets already in place are clean, efficient, and powerful; they won’t be abandoned because the regulations go away.”

Further, Dierker criticizes prescriptive regulations, which mandate specific technologies or methods, for stifling innovation. He points to the 45Q tax credit, which incentivizes carbon capture technology but fails to encourage more efficient methods, such as processes that decarbonize natural gas by separating hydrogen and solid carbon. He asserts, “One that yields two valuable co-products: clean hydrogen for power and industrial use and solid carbon to serve as a construction material to build and improve American infrastructure.”

Dierker concludes with optimism, suggesting that Trump’s regulatory approach, coupled with innovation, will lead to “greater safety, efficiency, and resilience of our nation’s infrastructure, supply chains, and industry.” He predicts that the U.S. will continue to reduce emissions while enhancing its economic and industrial capacities, ultimately leading to “a cleaner and healthier America.”