Presentation and introduction 0:00
The campaign of creating terror for humanity does not cease. But fortunately there are patriots who have dedicated their time, their lives, and have even risked their safety to denounce this. Let's listen to Jacqueline Probst
Audio in Spanish (translation not available)
Hello, welcome to episode No. 52 of our podcast GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, and No. 24 of our second season.
I am your host Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
After the UN made inaccurate and uncertain calculations of the costs to humanity of global warming predicted by them, several authors proceeded to conduct cost-opportunity analyses on these calculations. Others conducted analyses of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of implementing warming agreements. That's what I'm talking about in this episode.
Opportunity cost of control 03:02
The previous, current and next chapters are all excerpts from the chapter on the economics of climate change found in my book. This is based on an economic analysis by economist and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, explained and supplemented by me based on my experience as a professor of preventive health economics.
The costs of warming described in the previous episode are based on the assumption that this warming, according to the UN, is an imminent danger to humanity and, therefore, the inescapable obligation is to avoid damage, so the cost of this, according to them, becomes irrelevant.
This is based on a principle that exists in the world of environmental science known as the "precautionary principle". However, this contrasts with the harm caused by preventing potential harm, based on decreasing carbon emissions. This is known in economics as opportunity cost.
Let's explain this. In the cost/benefit analysis I explained in the previous episode, the UN, based on a future full of uncertainties and practically guessing what was going to happen, calculated the costs of warming, which are also based on future uncertainties. This was compared to the benefits side of this analysis, which they say are earned by decreasing carbon emissions.
But based on a cost-opportunity analysis, very often used in health economics, I conclude that this side of the benefits represents a cost, calculated precisely based on the opportunities lost by humanity, due to the loss of the benefits caused by CO2 emissions.
This cost is enormous for humanity because CO2 emissions are highly linked to the current development and growth system. In other words, the approach taken means sacrificing a huge portion of GDP that can be used for the development and growth of society that can potentially help prevent harm in the future (which is when the damage actually occurs) through alternatives, such as invention of new technology, greater adaptability, etc.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg came to similar conclusions, but based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. I will refer to this in the next section.
Cost/effectiveness of control 06:07
Dr. Lomborg, knowing that there is a cost to society, based on the decrease in CO2 emissions, measured as loss of GDP, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis.
For this, it first made a simulation where it measured the efficiency of the control measures, based on the goal of reducing emissions set by the Tokyo Protocol and the Paris Agreement. We know that this is a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to 1990. For that, a great effort is required since it would be necessary to reduce 50% of its emissions, by the most developed countries and slightly smaller amounts for the least developed, by 2050. These were estimated at $900 billion per year. This amount is because the costs to cut CO2 emissions increase proportionately over time.
If we recall the figures for the cost of global warming, presented in the previous episode, we see that both costs are very similar. Seen in terms of another economic analysis known as cost-efficiency, this effort has a practically zero value, in economic terms.
But more importantly, as Dr. Lomborg put it in terms of cost effectiveness, is that, according to his calculations, the temperature decreases achieved would be small. Their studies indicate that, according to the figures and goals managed by the Tokyo protocol, it would be possible to obtain an increase of 0.15 degrees Celsius less, in 2100 and only 2.5 cm less in the rise of the oceans; both are similar to what would be observed in a scenario in which no additional effort is made in the control of emissions (calculated by the UN as scenario IS92) Meanwhile, it should be remembered that China and India, considered as undeveloped, continue to increase their CO2 emissions.
Conclusions and farewell 08:41
In this sense, Dr. Lomborg's argument is that the world benefits much more if resources are focused on the development of nations and research in new clean technologies, rather than prioritizing the use of these in immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and reduction of global temperature.
Let's not forget that these calculations and their analyses are based on the assumption that the paradigm of man-made global warming was actually true, which has been discarded with the systematic presentation of new scientific evidence as research technology has improved.
What was exposed in the previous episode about the cost of global warming (seen in terms of the scenarios full of uncertainties of the UN) and the cost of cutting carbon emissions (seen in terms of the decrease in GDP), creates a great dilemma from both the economic and scientific point of view, and, still, moral and philosophical. How to address this dilemma? Can an answer be found in between? This logically reasoned dilemma can lead us to the approach of three possible paths:
1. Take action to reduce emissions "now".
2. Intervene later in the future.
3. Find a reasonable middle ground in time to intervene.
I will refer to this in the next episode.
In the meantime I want to leave this episode with the following reflection: Do you believe, after these explanations, that this paradigm, its components, its way of justifying itself, can be taken with due scientific seriousness, especially when its actions and consequences can produce so many negative impacts on the growth and development of countries, and therefore, on their well-being? especially of the poorest and most vulnerable, but even more so when this paradigm is surrounded and sustained by so many false and alarming statements like the one I presented in the previous episode?
What I presented today and what I will present in the future, is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES. This can be purchased as a physical book, or as an ebook through my website estebanmoralesvankwartel.com to which I invite you to subscribe. Here you can also access our podcast and find much other information of interest. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU. I HOPE I HAVE MET THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR RESPECTED LISTENERS FOR INFORMATION THAT IS HONEST AND USEFUL FOR THEIR OWN LIVES, FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY OPERATE. See you soon and thank you for honoring us with your attention.