The world has taken a backward step on renewables

Bjorn Lomborg once again highlights the wasteful expenditure of governments in subsidising renewables — more than $230 billion worldwide in 2019 alone, and with the Paris agreement itself costing $1-$2 trillion per annum (“Trillions in the wind”, 20/7). However, he has no answer as to how this might be remedied, except to embark on yet more research into green energy and to introduce distractions such as family planning, nutrition and brain development.

Since carbon dioxide has not yet been found to cause any degree of dangerous global warming, we should return to the cheapest and most reliable form of energy, coal, and reverse the destruction of a country’s once world-class energy system.

G. M. Derrick, Sherwood, Qld

Not only did the Bjorn Lomborg’s article provide us with a good dose of common sense regarding renewables and climate change (Letters, 22/7), but it also demonstrates how political forces and campaigns can lead to incorrect policies that are decidedly bad for economic growth and prosperity.

The combined forces of climate change scare campaigns and false promises of remedies have been very successful for the renewables industry but the opposite for economies and living standards.

From the discovery of how to make and control fire, the development of the steam engine that drove the Industrial Revolution, the harnessing of hydro power, oil discoveries, to the commercial application of nuclear power, these were innovations that improved energy efficiency and industrial productivity.

Now the world has taken a backward step. Renewables are inefficient and require huge amounts of land, with often disastrous environmental consequences. The subsidies used in propping them up is mind boggling.

Because energy efficiency drives industrial efficiency, we are obviously heading for hard times. Europe is struggling. We in Australia are heading the same way.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

Bjorn Lomborg is half right when he says the world will spend billions subsidising renewable energy when it would be more effective to invest in issues such as better education, better healthcare and access to nutritious food. We do need to spend more, but there is no logical reason that it should be at the expense of investment in renewable energy.

Recent analysis by the International Monetary Fund demonstrates that global fossil fuel subsidies have grown to around $5.2 trillion a year — more than 20 times the subsidies for renewable energy.

So when Lomborg acknowledges global warming is a real, man-made problem, then it should be clear where the money should be redirected from — it is not from renewable energy subsidies but rather subsidies to climate-heating fossil fuels.

Brad Pettitt, Fremantle, WA

Your editorial (“Cooler-headed strategy needed”, 20/7) places much faith in the words and writings on climate change by Bjorn Lomborg. His qualifications are in political science, and in 2009 he was referred to by Business Insider as one of “the 10 most respected global warming sceptics”. Lomborg does not dispute the reality of climate change, but is evidently unconvinced that it is human caused. He sees it not as our most serious environmental threat, but as an issue of economics and politics. I fail to see how climate change is political: it is a scientific fact.

Climate Feedback, a network of scientists who assess the credibility of climate change articles, has rated the credibility of Lomborg’s contributions between low and very low. It also cites three cases of his cherry-picking data to support his arguments and his anti-climate action agenda.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin, ACT

It was pleasing to see Bjorn Lomborg admitting global warming is real, but it is disappointing that he continues to dismiss efforts to address the issue. Yes, it will cost trillions and he can cite studies that support his message, but there are many other studies that show that the penalty of not implementing renewable targets would be many trillions of dollars more than the costs and that global GDP would drop if the targets are not achieved.

The shortcoming of Lomborg’s analyses is that he views everything in actual dollar terms and puts no price on the suffering of people from fires, floods, sea-level rise, disease and on the loss of species.

John Chapman, Nedlands, WA