A Supreme Optimist’s View on Climate Change
My critique of his seven "myths" about climate change
Bjorn Lomborg discusses seven “myths” about climate change (see video below). His views are important because he’s an influential guy. So, it’s worth the time to critically review this video if you’d like to strengthen your ability to intelligently talk about climate change. Here's my critique:
Myth #1 “Small islands will be submerged”
This myth is a bit of a straw man. The real issue is how serious damage will be from climate-change related flooding. Sea level is currently rising at 1/8th of an inch per year, which would be 10 inches in 80 years (NOAA data; expectedly higher as the oceans continue to warm). So, excepting tiny atolls, the statement is, strictly speaking, correct. Nonetheless, Bjorn agrees that sea level rise will cause flooding. That of course can be devastating to island countries like the Maldives especially given that high human densities and infrastructure are often located in the most vulnerable areas. Bjorn’s claim that coral islands are gaining area is only proven for some islands in the Pacific; so it appears to be an unwarranted overgeneralization. But why are some islands gaining sand as sea level rises? The devil is in the details. And what will happen as sand-producing coral reefs continue to die-off with rising sea temperatures, and thus fail to provide sand to build or rebuild islands?
Myth #2 “Extreme weather events are on the rise due to climate change”
It’s weird that this would be portrayed as a myth. Perhaps to mislead people with short attention spans? Bjorn himself confirms the statement’s veracity: greater heat waves are occurring; there are more heavy rain events; probably stronger (albeit fewer) hurricanes. He then wanders off topic, arguing that surely the world will get richer, so we won’t be nearly as affected by climate impacts*; and that fewer people will die in extreme weather events because we’ll become much better at dealing with them. (Note: I didn’t fact check his claim of a huge reduction in human deaths from climate disasters over the past century.)
Myth #3 “Climate lock downs matter little”
Bjorn believes that cutting the degree of human activity and consumption won’t help in the fight against climate change. He argues you can’t tell people “no.” But he fails to entertain the possibility that the world’s consumptive mindset could be altered if the full weight of influencers (including himself, the media, political and business leaders, etc.) were on board. Admittedly that wouldn't be easy, but nor would salvation from unproven technologies which Bjorn is excited about (see below). His “lock down myth” stems from the fact that world carbon emissions dropped by only 6% in 2020 due to the pandemic despite what he claims was a “shut down of the entire world.” That 6% might well be considered “insignificant” (as Bjorn puts it) given that, according to the UN, the world needs to cut emissions by 7.6% every year by 2030 to be on track to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. To me, that reflects just how badly we’ve overshot Earth’s capacity to compensate for our excesses.
Myth #4 “Electric cars will save us”
Bjorn argues that electric cars will matter very little in the short term but will be part of the long- term solution. He points out the environmental costs of mass producing them. I tend to agree, but certainly never believed that electric cars alone will save us from the impacts of climate change.
Myth #5 “Polar bears are dying out”
Bjorn claims that polar bears are increasing in number. I’m not sure where he gets his information. By contrast: “Based on the data available, the latest IUCN assessment said three polar bear populations are currently in decline: those in Baffin Bay, Kane Basin and the Southern Beaufort Sea. Six polar bear subpopulations were currently considered stable, based on a 12-year window centred on 2015: those in the Davis Strait, Foxe Basin, Gulf of Boothia, Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay and Western Hudson Bay. After declining throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay, probably the most studied subpopulation, are now thought to be stable, though considerably lower than 25 years ago. Polar bears in the M’Clintock Channel seem to be on the rise, albeit from much reduced numbers compared to the 1970s. Scientists don’t have enough data in the remaining nine populations to say whether polar bear numbers have gone up or down (Arctic Basin, Barents Sea, East Greenland, Kara Sea, Lancaster Sound, Laptev Sea, Norwegian Bay, Viscount Melville Sound and the Chukchi Sea)". https://www.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-and-climate-change-what-does-the-science-say?fbclid=IwAR32yPTMnUF-TuZJ_ar_jFU2kT7l4X37CQS05ao8KerSbyb9rS3N8MobpCg
Even if Bjorn were correct about there now being more polar bears, it will not matter if their habitat degrades due to climate warming. His argument that since polar bears survived periods of climate warming in the past they’ll do so now is grossly simplistic and uniformed about marine ecology. See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel.../2018/10/181009175639.htm
Apart from polar bears, there’s clear evidence that numerous species of wildlife are in trouble because of climate change. For Bjorn, it’s apparently all too convenient to ignore that.
Myth #6 “Cutting out meat will save the planet”
Bjorn claims that meat accounts for 50% of food-related greenhouse gas emissions but only 4% of total emissions. He says that since it’s cheaper to be a vegetarian, the money saved by avoiding meat will be used for other stuff tied to carbon emissions, thus lowering the effect of eliminating meat to 2% of total emissions. (I’ll let somebody else factcheck these claims). Bjorn seems to suggest that whatever single action we take to cut emissions (like less meat consumption) will yield minor benefits. He ignores or dismisses any overall benefit from taking multiple actions to reduce consumption to limit climate change.
Myth #7 “Increasing wildfires”
According to Bjorn, wildfires have been decreasing in area affected “pretty much every year since 1900,” including in the U.S. This is entirely inconsistent with data from the US Environmental Protection Agency. See https://www.epa.gov/.../climate-change-indicators-wildfires. Globally, while he’s technically correct by saying the amount of burnt area has declined, he’s misleading us by not providing a fuller picture.
Consider that: “The global decrease is mostly driven by less fire in savannahs and grasslands, mainly in Africa, but also in South America and Australia. In quantitative terms, fire in those grassy ecosystems account for around 70% of the total global area burnt, so the reduction in fire activity here outweighs the increase in burned area that we are seeing in other [forested] parts of the world…There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands.” https://royalsociety.org/.../2020/10/global-trends-wildfire/
I’d hasten to add that lands overgrazed by livestock don’t burn. Apart from Bjorn’s misleading statements, he switches his argument here and assures that people will “adapt” to any increase in fires resulting from the effects of carbon emissions on climate. (That's presumably if you happen to survive them).
So much for the “myths.” Bjorn’s solutions stem from his belief that climate change is not the end of the world (perhaps true for many humans but not for many others, and certainly not for many other species). He thinks that a low and rising global carbon tax would help a little. But for him, the big solution is “innovation,” namely cheaper “green” energy technology that we don’t have right now but are “very likely” to have in the future, that's if we invest in it. We’ll need innovative batteries to store renewable energy as well as clean nuclear power to run civilization. When the interviewer shows some skepticism, Bjorn expresses his faith and confidence in technology. And reminds us again, that climate change is “not the end of the world.”
*Barbara Williams, a Scale Down member on Facebook, adds: “Bjorn Lomborg biggest error, and this is a trap that the vast majority of affluent society are caught up in, is the false assumption that money will hold it's value as climate and ecological collapse plays out. In fact the purchasing power will diminish as it becomes increasingly difficult to grow crops and recover infrastructure damage from extreme weather events. Therefor the climate pledges at COP26 are increasingly unlikely to be honoured as time goes by.”