Monday, May 10, 2021
Home Weather Why did the EU invite Greta Thunberg and not Nobel Prize winner...

Why did the EU invite Greta Thunberg and not Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus?


Press launch by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL)

Essay “Undue Climate Haste”

21 April 2021

Optimum financial outturn is seen at 3.5 levels Celsius of warming in 2100
Mortality attributable to excessive climate decreased spectacularly

Why did the EU invite the younger Swedish local weather activist Greta Thunberg to talk in Brussels as a substitute of the Nobel Prize successful local weather economist William Nordhaus? That query is answered in an essay entitled Undue Climate Haste, which the CLINTEL Foundation is publishing right this moment. The essay concludes: “The main message of this essay is that we are in no hurry and that panic is unwarranted. Climate change always deserves our attention, but the idea that we need to turn our energy supply upside down right now appears to be driven by emotion rather than reason.”

The EU has determined it needs to realize internet zero carbon emission by 2050. If they succeed, Europe will grow to be the first ‘climate neutral’ continent. The media have primarily welcomed this ambition. Politicians declare that there can be many advantages of this coverage: they are saying it should make the financial system stronger and create jobs. But are these claims justified, by a cost-benefit evaluation for instance?

They are not, states the essay Undue Climate Haste. Remarkably the Nobel Prize (2018) successful local weather economist William Nordhaus confirmed in his Nobel lecture in Stockholm that the ‘economic optimum’ for local weather coverage is to permit 3.5 levels Celsius of warming in 2100. Economically, it’s higher to simply accept a specific amount of local weather harm and to restrict the price of mitigation than the different manner spherical: bold objectives corresponding to staying beneath 2 levels and even 1.5 levels are extraordinarily pricey.

The local weather objectives of the EU are not solely very pricey, they’re unachievable in apply. A easy calculation reveals that so as to attain internet zero emissions in 2050, the EU should deploy a brand new nuclear energy station each week, from now till 2050. In whole, 1650 new nuclear energy stations could be wanted. Yet right this moment, 60 years after the first nuclear energy plan went into manufacturing, there are solely 450 such vegetation throughout the world.

The EU has a robust desire for ‘renewable’ power sources, corresponding to wind and photo voltaic, as a substitute of nuclear. Achieving internet zero with wind would require 450 new 2.5-MW generators to be put in each two days till 2050; 82,000 windmills a 12 months! Where would you place all of them?

The final a part of the essay explains the EU’s haste in direction of its local weather aim is completely pointless. Almost all necessary parameters point out that local weather change is a manageable phenomenon. We now have the expertise and the wealth to manage.

The variety of victims of maximum climate has decreased over the previous century by greater than 95%. Damage from such phenomena, corrected for the development of the financial system, has additionally declined barely. Sea-level is rising, however very slowly and, furthermore, no acceleration is obvious in lengthy tide-gauge information.

Meanwhile there are sturdy indications that local weather fashions, on which local weather coverage is basically primarily based, are ‘oversensitive’, i.e. the actual local weather is much less delicate to CO2 than the local weather fashions say it’s. This means much less future warming, and that CO2 reductions wanted to remain beneath the 2 levels goal do not must be so aggressive. Even if emissions keep above the 2020 degree for the remainder of the century, the 2-degree goal stays in sight. Unfortunately, the local weather science group not often tells policymakers about these comparatively new insights, preferring to debate situations primarily based on local weather fashions.

The essay Undue Climate Haste was commissioned by the ECR Group of the European Parliament in Brussels.

You can learn the essay right here.

CLINTEL Foundation
The Climate Intelligence basis (CLINTEL) is an impartial basis that operates in the fields of local weather change and local weather coverage. CLINTEL was based in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. CLINTEL’s major goal is to generate data and understanding of the causes and results of local weather change in addition to the results of local weather coverage.

For extra info contact Marcel Crok,

Leave a Reply

Monday, May 10, 2021
All countries
Total confirmed cases
Updated on May 10, 2021 12:29 am

Most Popular

Most Trending

Recent Comments

Chat on WhatsApp
How can we help you?
%d bloggers like this: