An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg

The statement that 'solar and wind is cheaper than fossil fuels' is technically true regarding levelized cost but dramatically misleading because it ignores the 24/7 availability requirement; when the sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing, solar and wind are unavailable at any price, making intermittency the key cost factor.

“Solar and wind is not cheap when you need electricity 24/7.”

OECD growth rates have declined substantially: from approximately 4% per person in the 1960s, to about 2% in the 1990s, to barely above 1% today, with climate policy accounting for a significant portion of the recent decline.

“If you look at the growth rate in rich countries, the OECD, we used to have growth at about 4% per person in the 1960s. In the 1990s, we were down to about 2%. Now it's barely above 1%. Not all of this is because of climate policy, but certainly part of it towards the end is driven by climate policy.”

Deaths from climate-related disasters have declined dramatically: approximately 5 million annual deaths 150 years ago, 500,000 in the 1920s, 55,000 in the 1970s, and fewer than 10,000 today—a decline of approximately 500-fold despite global population increasing fivefold.

“Take a look at how many people die from climate-related disasters as floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires. 150 years ago, we estimate that about 5 million people died from these climate-related disasters. In the 1870s, 5 million people died each and every year. This is a unfathomably large number of people dying. In the 1920s, about half a million people died from climate-related disasters each and every year. In the 1970s, half a century later, about 55,000 people died. And today, less than 10,000 people die each and every year.”

The global transition away from fossil fuels is occurring extremely slowly: fossil fuels declined from 87% to 81% of primary energy from 1971 to today, suggesting a complete transition would take four to nine centuries at current rates, not by 2050.

“If you look at the actual data from 1971 till today, yes, it has gone down slightly from 87% to 81%. But it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we're going to go to zero in 2050. Not going to happen. What is likely to happen is a slow decline. If we take the fastest decline, it'll probably be done in, I don't know, four centuries. More likely, we'll be done in nine centuries.”

Climate policy should be characterized as addressing climate concern for people who are 'incredibly worried about climate' alongside addressing the real climate problem, implying there is a disconnect between actual risk and perceived risk.

“There's a real climate problem, but there's also a lot of people incredibly worried about climate, and those are real, too. We need to address this.”

Solar and wind are the cheapest electricity technically (measured by LCOE), but this metric is misleading because it only applies when sun is shining or wind is blowing, not during 24/7 demand periods.

“They're technically correct, but they're dramatically misleading you.”

Economic growth is the most effective adaptation to climate change: poor populations are vulnerable to climate impacts (and to all other harms), while prosperous populations are resilient to both climate impacts and other challenges, making growth acceleration more effective than emissions reduction.

“poor people incredibly harmed by and vulnerable from climate change. If a hurricane hits Guatemala, it kills a lot of people. It disrupts the economy. But remember, poor people are harmed by everything. They're incredibly vulnerable to bad health care, bad education, all the other things that afflict poor society, whereas prosperous people are not. In the same way, if the same hurricane hits Florida, sure it's going to kill some people and it's going to make some disruption, but then Florida moves on. And of course, prosperous people are much more resilient against all other problems. That's why growth matters so much.”

UK electricity prices have increased threefold over the past 20 years (since approximately 2004), rising from historically low levels due primarily to climate policy implementation, while the US maintained stable electricity prices over the same period.

“If you look at the energy price, so this is from the International Energy Agency, the best agency, the best data that we have, that shows what is the electricity price for the UK, both for industry, for households. It's inflation-adjusted to 2024 pounds, or pence, actually. What you see here is over the last century or so, prices came down because we got better and better at producing electricity. But since 2003, or the early 2000s, prices have gone up. They first doubled, and then they tripled. British people now pay three times as much as they did just 20 years ago. Most of this is because of climate.”

The premise that 'we can get by with less energy' is false; the data across all countries shows that higher energy availability correlates with higher wealth, meaning development requires more energy, not less.

“We have this idea that we can get by with less energy, but actually, this is not what we see.”

The relationship between energy costs and economic growth is direct: when households and industry face high electricity costs, they reduce consumption and investment, leading to lower economic activity and growth.

“of course, this drives down consumption...And crucially, and that's of course what we're talking about, it drives down growth.”

The more energy a country has available, the richer it is; there are no low-energy, high-income countries, therefore achieving and maintaining prosperity requires abundant energy, not energy reduction.

“If you take the amount of energy that countries have out this axis and how rich they are, it's very clear that you have India here, you have China here, you have the US up here. It's just simply very, very clear. The more energy you have, the more likely it is that you're going to be rich. Or to put it differently, to get rich, you need lots of energy, and to stay rich, you need lots of energy. There's just simply no low-energy, high-income countries.”

People and nations will not voluntarily accept permanent reduced prosperity ('be poorer and colder and less prosperous for decades') to address global problems; historical problems were solved through innovation that made solutions cheaper and more attractive.

“People are not going to say yes to that.”

Global burned area has declined substantially: from approximately 4.2% of global land area historically to about 3% currently, and since the late 1990s with satellite data showing a decline of 25% or more, contradicting claims that global fire is increasing.

“We have very good data that shows we've actually seen a declining amount or fraction of the world burning each year. We've gone from about 4.2 down to about 3%, and since the late 1990s, we've had satellites circling the world every single 24/7 picking up and all fires. And what they show, very different from what you hear, is a decline of 25% or more.”

Per-capita electricity consumption in the UK has declined since the early 2000s, while China has now surpassed the UK in per-capita consumption and the world is about to, primarily because the UK has expensive electricity while the US has cheap electricity.

“The UK actually uses less and less electricity per person since the early 2000. Not surprisingly, if you have to pay a lot of money for electricity, you stop using it. Actually, China has gone past per person the UK. The world is just about to do that for the UK. And of course, the US just uses way more electricity. Why? Because you've cheap electricity. The UK has incredibly costly electricity.”

Denmark, the speaker's native country, has the most solar and wind capacity of any country examined but also has the very highest electricity prices, exemplifying the failure of renewable-heavy policies to deliver cheap energy.

“Uh and I'm sorry to say my native Denmark um does the very best or very worst, right? It has the most solar and wind and the very highest prices.”

The decline in climate-related deaths is driven by adaptation and human behavior, not climate stabilization: people actively work to reduce fire through management practices and similar adaptive measures, demonstrating that adaptation is effective.

“why? This is because people don't like fire, and so they actually make sure that there's less fire. This is not rocket science. We know how to do this. We do this all the time with adaptation.”

Countries with cheap electricity (US) consume significantly more electricity per capita than countries with expensive electricity (UK), demonstrating price elasticity of demand for energy.

“And of course, the US just uses way more electricity. Why? Because you've cheap electricity. The UK has incredibly costly electricity.”

Innovation-based solutions to global problems are more effective than demand reduction: historical problems (not specified) were not solved by making people poorer, but rather through innovation that made better solutions cheaper than alternatives.

“Innovation is the way that we fix all global problems. Remember, we didn't fix other problems in the world by telling everyone, 'I'm sorry, sir. Would you mind to be poorer and colder and less prosperous for decades on end to fix this problem?' People are not going to say yes to that. What they did do in the past and what we will do in the future is to say we're going to solve problems through innovation.”

If cheaper green energy sources (such as fourth-generation nuclear or other technologies) are developed to cost less than fossil fuels, adoption would be global and universal including by China, India, and Africa, not just wealthy Western nations.

“If we get cheaper green energy, say fourth generation nuclear, a lot of other possible options. If we find green energy that's cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone will switch. Not just rich, well-meaning Brits and Americans, but also the Chinese, the Indians, and the Africans.”

People actively choose to reduce fire in their environments through management practices and behavioral choices, demonstrating that human adaptation drives environmental improvements independent of climate stabilization.

“why? This is because people don't like fire, and so they actually make sure that there's less fire. This is not rocket science. We know how to do this. We do this all the time with adaptation.”

There is a strong positive correlation between energy consumption per capita and national wealth: countries with more energy access like the US are richer than those with less like India and China, and there are no low-energy, high-income countries.

“If you take the amount of energy that countries have out this axis and how rich they are, it's very clear that you have India here, you have China here, you have the US up here. It's just simply very, very clear. The more energy you have, the more likely it is that you're going to be rich.”

Solar and wind energy are only cheap when the sun is shining or wind is blowing; they are the most expensive form of energy when unavailable because you cannot purchase electricity at any price when you need it 24/7, making claims of their overall cheapness technically correct but dramatically misleading.

“You know how you're constantly being told that solar and wind is incredibly cheap? We've all seen this graph of how solar and wind has come down dramatically over the last couple of decades, and it's now cheaper than ever. And many people will tell you that solar and wind is some of the cheapest energy in the world, and some of the cheapest electricity in the world. They're technically correct, but they're dramatically misleading you. Why? Because it's only cheaper when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. When it's not, it's the most expensive form of energy in the world, because you can't buy it for any amount of money.”

UK electricity prices have tripled over the last 20 years in inflation-adjusted terms, rising from a century-long declining trend starting in 2003, driven primarily by climate policies.

“If you look at the energy price, so this is from the International Energy Agency, the best agency, the best data that we have, that shows what is the electricity price for the UK, both for industry, for households. It's inflation-adjusted to 2024 pounds, or pence, actually. Uh still not in pounds. What you see here is over the last century or so, prices came down because we got better and better at producing electricity. But since 2003, or the early 2000s, prices have gone up. They first doubled, and then they tripled. British people now pay three times as much as they did just 20 years ago. Most of this is because of climate.”

The UK now spends about 2% more of its GDP each year on electricity than necessary due to climate policies, a huge and unnecessary cost that drives down consumption and growth.

“the UK is now spending about 2% more of its GDP every year on electricity. That's a huge cost and an unnecessary cost. And of course, this drives down consumption.”

Climate change is not an existential or all-encompassing catastrophe; deaths from climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires) have declined from approximately 5 million per year in the 1870s to about 55,000 in the 1970s to less than 10,000 today, a 500-fold decline while global population quintupled.

“Take a look at how many people die from climate-related disasters as floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires. 150 years ago, we estimate that about 5 million people died from these climate-related disasters. In the 1870s, 5 million people died each and every year. This is a unfathomably large number of people dying. In the 1920s, about half a million people died from climate-related disasters each and every year. In the 1970s, half a century later, about 55,000 people died. And today, less than 10,000 people die each and every year. Climate change is not this all-encompassing fear that's going to drive us all to death. It's not the existential problem we're talking about. We've seen it decline 500 times. And of course, at the same time, global population is more than quadrupled, sorry, quintupled.”

A sensible climate policy recognizes climate change as a manageable problem, not an existential threat, with economists estimating costs of 2-3% by century's end, which is manageable and far less than the 100%+ costs of net-zero policies.

“We need to recognize that a sensible climate policy is one that recognizes climate change as a problem, but one that's manageable. Economists will tell you it's going to cost 2 to three percent by the end of the century. That's not nothing, but it's certainly not near 100%”

Across nearly 70 countries, there is a clear positive correlation between the percentage of electricity from solar and wind and the total electricity price: as solar and wind penetration increases, prices rise systematically, contradicting the claim that more renewables lead to cheaper electricity.

“We have data for almost 70 countries. This is what it shows. Very, very clearly that the more solar and wind you get, the more costly it gets. So, you have China and India down here with little solar and wind and very low prices. You have US with a little more solar and wind at higher prices. You have the EU up there with much more solar and wind and much higher prices. And then, of course, you have those frontrunners, the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, that have huge amounts of solar and wind and enormously high prices.”

The claim that fossil fuels will be phased out and replaced by renewables is not supported by data: fossil fuels have declined from 87% to 81% of global energy since 1971, and at this rate a complete phase-out would take four to nine centuries, not by 2050 as proposed.

“There is no train. There is no station. There's not even a snack bar. This is not happening. If you look at the actual data from 1971 till today, yes, it has gone down slightly from 87% to 81%. But it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we're going to go to zero in 2050. Not going to happen. What is likely to happen is a slow decline. If we take the fastest decline, it'll probably be done in, I don't know, four centuries. More likely, we'll be done in nine centuries.”

Global fire extent has declined from approximately 4.2% to 3% of the world's surface, with a 25% or greater decline since satellite monitoring began in the late 1990s, contrary to claims that the world is burning more.

“Take a look at how many people die from climate-related disasters as floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires...We have very good data that shows we've actually seen a declining amount or fraction of the world burning each year. We've gone from about 4.2 down to about 3%, and since the late 1990s, we've had satellites circling the world every single 24/7 picking up and all fires. And what they show, very different from what you hear, is a decline of 25% or more.”

Adaptation is a more cost-effective climate policy tool than carbon cuts: dikes and levees can prevent flooding of 187 million people by century's end, whereas expensive carbon cuts can save only 5,000 people, making adaptation 37,400 times more cost-effective.

“We also fix climate policy with adaptation. Take for instance sea level rise, which is a real problem. We know how to do that. We've known how to do it since the Babylonians. You do this with dikes and levees. We estimate that we can fix with dikes and levees about 187 million people from getting flooded by the end of the century, whereas incredibly expensive carbon cuts can save maybe 5,000.”

Current climate policies are wasteful not merely in cost but in design: they fail to achieve emissions reductions while simultaneously raising energy costs, making them both inefficient and counterproductive to the stated climate goal.

“we're only going to get this right if we stop having incredibly wasteful policies...The fundamental point here is we're only going to get this right if we stop having incredibly wasteful policies.”

UK electricity policy has created a cautionary example: policy-driven price increases have made the UK's electricity three times more expensive than 20 years ago, while the US, pursuing different policies, maintained stable electricity prices, demonstrating that policy choice, not inevitability, determines energy costs.

“we actually do know another future, another possibility was available because if you look at the US price it was pretty stable all across the last 30 years. It needn't have been this that the UK is now spending about 2% more of its GDP every year on electricity.”

Data on deaths from climate disasters demonstrate that climate risk has become more manageable over time as societies developed: historical mortality shows declining deaths from climate-related disasters despite greater exposure due to population growth, indicating human adaptation capacity.

“We've seen it decline 500 times. And of course, at the same time, global population is more than quadrupled, sorry, quintupled. We've seen a dramatic decline in the risk of dying from climate-related disasters. We are better off, not worse off.”

Climate policy should focus on adaptation infrastructure (dikes, levees, sea walls) because adaptation has lower cost per person protected than emissions reduction and has faster payoff times.

“We should do adaptation first.”

Increasing low-carbon R&D fivefold would cost approximately 100 billion dollars, which is only 5% of the 2 trillion dollars currently being spent on climate policies annually, making innovation-focused climate spending far more cost-efficient than current policies.

“we could increase it fivefold. It would cost about a hundred billion dollars. It's still just five percent of what we're currently spending of the two trillion we're spending on climate policies every day.”

Global fire extent has declined from 4.2% to 3% of land burned per year, with satellite data (since late 1990s) showing 25%+ decline in global burned area, contrary to public perception and media narratives of increasing wildfires.

“since the late 1990s, we've had satellites circling the world every single 24/7 picking up and all fires. And what they show, very different from what you hear, is a decline of 25% or more. It's not such that the world is burning more and more. It's burning less and less. The biggest or the lowest uh burn was in 2022. The second lowest burn burn was in 2024.”

Solar and wind energy appears cheap on a levelized cost basis (when sun is shining or wind is blowing), but is actually the most expensive energy in the world when considering 24/7 electricity requirements because intermittency requires backup power or storage.

“You know how you're constantly being told that solar and wind is incredibly cheap? We've all seen this graph of how solar and wind has come down dramatically over the last couple of decades, and it's now cheaper than ever. And many people will tell you that solar and wind is some of the cheapest energy in the world, and some of the cheapest electricity in the world. They're technically correct, but they're dramatically misleading you. Why? Because it's only cheaper when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. When it's not, it's the most expensive form of energy in the world, because you can't buy it for any amount of money. Solar and wind is not cheap when you need electricity 24/7.”

Climate change is not an existential threat or 'the end of the world,' but rather a manageable problem that can be addressed through sensible policy approaches.

“climate is not the end of the world. We believe and we're being told that this is the all-encompassing catastrophe of the world. This is an existential problem. It's not. It's a problem.”

A sensible climate policy should treat climate change as a manageable problem costing 2-3% of GDP by end of century, rather than implementing expensive net-zero policies, and should focus on low-carbon R&D, adaptation, and economic growth.

“a sensible climate policy is one that recognizes climate change as a problem, but one that's manageable. Economists will tell you it's going to cost 2 to three percent by the end of the century. That's not nothing, but it's certainly not near 100%”

Russian gas reliance was a factor in UK electricity costs, but fracking could have prevented the energy price problem by providing cheap domestic energy.

“there's obviously also some you Ukrainian here, but the point is that's because we relied on cheap Russian gas to pull us through. That turned out to be a really bad idea. But of course, maybe the UK should have been fracking then it wouldn't have had this problem.”