Presentation and introduction 0:00
Since the content of what is presented in this second season of my podcast is presented in greater detail in my book THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES1, I am pleased to announce that from now on, this can be purchased in all branches of the prestigious Panamanian bookstore EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA.
I recommend its acquisition because here you can find an extensive bibliographic reference that will be very useful for your research and extensions on the subject.
Hello, welcome to episode No. 53 of our podcast GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, and No. 25 of our second season.
I am your host Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
In this episode I end with the analysis of the costs to humanity brought about by the reduction of carbon emissions and explain some more efficient alternatives that have been proposed by some experts.
Cost of emissions control 01:08
The economic analysis of the actions and action strategies taken by the UN to reduce carbon emissions are extremely complex. For example, in the previous episode we could see that in the cost/benefit analysis of these actions, done by the UN, the part of the benefits is actually a large cost for humanity and in any case this cost is much higher than what can be estimated.
Some scientists have tried to calculate these costs. For example, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that if it were to manage carbon emissions as advocated by the Paris Agreement, limiting temperature increases to 2.5 or 1.5 (art. 2 of the Paris Agreement), the costs would be 7.8 trillion and 38 trillion, respectively. I had already mentioned that, in this model created by the IPCC, with all assumptions included, the cost of global warming was calculated at 5 trillion dollars which, in all cases, needs to be spent. This means that, despite the good intentions emanating from the adoption of the Tokyo Protocol, it ends up representing a net cost of enormous magnitude for the world.
Regardless of the outcome of the calculations of the cost of controlling carbon emissions, it is easy then to conclude that, for this, the current world, with the current form of development (which is impossible to change instantaneously), would have to be virtually "turned off", with all the socio-economic, health, etc. disasters that this would entail.
But I want to present some alternatives to the problem, reminding again that I am assuming that the warming calculations presented by the UN are real. This for the benefit of the discussion.
Well, the experts, responding to a series of economic principles, on which I delve into in my book, have advocated some alternatives, based on the economic fact that emission reductions, in the future, are cheaper than emission reductions today. In other words, fewer current resources need to be set aside to meet future emissions, so eliminating the cumulative total emissions would be cheaper for society.
More efficient alternatives 04:13
In addition to the aforementioned economic consideration, the authors have recognized that postponing the transition from fossil fuels provides valuable time to develop adaptation and mitigation measures; In addition, it gives us more time to migrate to cheaper (and carbon-free) alternatives to allow social capital (power plants, buildings and transport) to adapt, and thus remove carbon from the atmosphere through the carbon cycle, that is, using the natural mechanism of carbon itself.
With this in mind, so-called "integral models" have been developed. These use a large number of disciplines to enrich information that cannot be collected by traditional research channels (hence their name as integral models). These seek to address the concern of finding a middle ground between temperature, emissions and cost, striking a balance between substantial abatement costs at the beginning of the horizon, and between potentially large (avoided) damage at the end of the horizon. We must consider that the more CO2 we try to cut, the more cost it represents to society.
The analysis of these, carried out by Dr. Lomborg, showed that there would be a saving to society of 271,000 million dollars. Dr. Lomborg compares this cost with those produced under the Tokyo Protocol and finds that with the way this protocol is implemented there are no savings, but costs of more than 500,000 million dollars (in addition to the 5 trillion).
Even more troubling were the author's conclusions regarding impact. Not only does the Paris Agreement represent a setback for the world in terms of loss of well-being, but with any of all the actions taken, including the full implementation of the Tokyo Protocol, the impact of temperature will be very light: with Tokyo the reduction will be 0.03 degrees Celsius in 2100, with the models presented. With the best of the integral models, although, equally, the impact is light, this one would be a little better and, in addition, much cheaper than Tokyo.
Conclusions and farewell 07:08
But the search for alternatives did not end here. Experts have continued to try to find better models that produce a good impact on emissions and at the same time less damage to the well-being of society. Like the other scenarios and models described above, all scenarios show an increase in CO2 reduction over time. Again, the key policy question is, what kind of medium-term emission reductions would be necessary? The mitigation options assumed differ between scenarios, and depend, to a large extent, on the structure of the model.
Generally speaking, the models call for the development of more conservative energy technologies, as the logic of technological development suggests is the case, and as has been the history of technological development. It is clear, for example, that there is an abysmal difference in quality between the US oil industry and Venezuela today.
The review of the new models introduced in 2001 revealed that they provide the world with a considerable economic gain by the year 2100. The extra economic benefits would be 107 trillion (20 times more than the total cost of warming) which means 50% more per capita income for developed countries and 75% more for less developed countries.
This is due to the savings that occur by spending less on emissions control, simply with the strategy of starting later in controlling these and applying all the market benefits that this implies. By comparison, the implementation of current climate policies so defended in most of the media and a number of scientists will end up spending 18 trillion in 2100.
However, this extra resource represents a great opportunity for the world to have a better capacity to adapt, especially the least developed countries. It is a resource that, if invested in development, will produce improvements in general well-being not only in the future, but now. Everything indicates, in addition, that, in general, all alternative scenarios to current climate policies entail greater economic advantages, and with better (more efficient), although light, results in temperature control.
All the information emanating from environmental groups entails an extreme defense of their climate policies (Tokyo and Paris) without mentioning even one of the serious problems that these entail, not even a single one of the alternatives is mentioned, and, therefore, not a simple advantage of these: they only concentrate on the apocalyptic scenario that would bring not doing what is advocated, showing an absence of willingness to discuss honestly and with an open mind.
What I presented today and what I will present in the future, is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS OF THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES. This can be purchased in all branches of the prestigious Panamanian bookstore, EL HOMBRE DE LA MANCHA
This can also be purchased 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.