Muchas gracias por venir a este nuevo acto de Euromind, la plataforma con la que he querido propiciar un acercamiento entre la esfera científica y la política.

El cambio climático es uno de los principales problemas del planeta.

Hay evidencias sólidas sobre el papel del CO2 en el efecto invernadero. Voy a citar solo dos: en 1859, John Tyndall demostró que la presencia de trazas de CO2 o de vapor de agua en la mezcla de gases de un tubo incrementaba considerablemente su temperatura. Y más recientemente, datos obtenidos por satélites de la NASA muestran que la Tierra emite calor al exterior salvo en las longitudes de onda que absorbe el CO2.

El CO2, así como el vapor de agua y otras moléculas, absorben radiación, lo que contribuye a que aumente la temperatura y a que se produzca el cambio climático. A partir de aquí se sigue que cuanto más CO2 haya en la atmósfera, más aumentará la temperatura debido al efecto invernadero. El efecto invernadero tiene una función reguladora muy necesaria: sin moléculas que causen el efecto invernadero, las noches serían heladas y los días abrasadores, como se constata en el planeta Mercurio. Con un exceso de CO2, el planeta podría convertirse en un infierno como Venus. La vida en la Tierra requiere, por tanto, de un equilibrio entre estos dos extremos.

Dudar de estos hechos es no respetar la objetividad científica. Es peligroso y absurdo.

Si el problema del cambio climático se redujera al ámbito de las ciencias naturales, ya estaría resuelto. Se trata, sin embargo, de un tema mucho más complejo. Buena parte del incremento del CO2 que se produce en la atmósfera se debe a la actividad económica. Como los combustibles fósiles son tan baratos, su consumo ha permitido que cada vez un mayor número de individuos puedan abandonar la situación de pobreza extrema. Es el principal remedio para la pobreza, y lo que explica el aumento de la esperanza de vida en todo el mundo, y que cada vez se viva mejor.

El problema del cambio climático, por tanto, no es exclusivo de las ciencias naturales, sino que también concierne a la economía y, por supuesto, a la política. Yen las ciencias sociales ni hay soluciones únicas, ni estas son perfectas. Por ejemplo, se puede optar por penalizar el uso de combustibles fósiles, pero está decisión obra en detrimento de los individuos más vulnerables de la sociedad y también de los países en vías de desarrollo.

Por este motivo el debate político es imprescindible y necesario. Es un debate que ha estado totalmente ausente en el parlamento. ¿Cómo es posible, por ejemplo, que no haya habido ni una sola iniciativa política sobre energía nuclear, a pesar del papel que podría desempeñar para la solución de este problema?

Pese a lo mucho que nos va en juego, los debates versan más sobre emociones que sobre razones. Véase, sin ir más lejos, el catastrofismo ecológico, cuyos predicadores están llegando al punto de utilizar niños para movilizar a las multitudes. Si aceptamos que es un problema serio y en el que nos va el futuro, no entiendo que se pretenda que los niños sean los únicos que puedan expresarse legítimamente.

Otra forma menos sutil de impedir el debate es lanzar la acusación de “escéptico climático” o bien “negacionista” a cualquiera que cuestione las decisiones políticas. Ciertamente, hay individuos como el presidente de Estados Unidos, el Sr. Trump, que piensan que el cambio climático es un bulo creado por China para destruir la economía de su país. Durante estos días pasados he recibido mensajes de personas indignadas por haber invitado al Dr. Lomborg y al que califican de escéptico climático. Ya les avanzo que no lo es, por lo que a todos aquellos que hayan venido por que se sientan insultadas y quieran expresar su indignación, se han equivocado de sitio.

Como ya he dicho, poner en duda los hechos no tiene sentido. En estos años en los que he ejercido de diputada, he comprobado que en general el Parlamento Europeo tiene poco respeto por la opinión científica. A la mayoría de los políticos les ha dado absolutamente lo mismo que las agencias científicas europeas y del resto del mundo aseguren que los organismos modificados genéticamente son totalmente seguros, y tampoco hacen ningún caso de las garantías científicas que ofrecen determinados pesticidas si por razones ideológicas han decidido que hay que prohibirlos. Por ello no me congratulo de que de repente aparezcan tantos defensores de la ciencia y la razón. Para este tipo de políticos, la ciencia es un instrumento al que recurren cuando les resulta útil. Y en el tema del cambio climático, a muchos les viene bien calificar de negacionistas a cualquiera que quiera debatir sobre las distintas maneras de afrontar este problema. Para propiciar este tipo de debates impulsé Euromind, y con esa finalidad he invitado al Dr. Lomborg a hablar aquí.

Y ahora cedo la palabra a mi amigo Alejo Vidal-Quadras, que fue vicepresidente del Parlamento Europeo y que es Físico de formación, que va a ejercer de presentador y moderador del evento. Nadie mejor para un evento de estas características.

Reply to B. Lomborg’s presentation on Climate Change, by Stephan Trioreau

Attending the presentation of Professor Lomborg on climate change made me witness of a partially emotional debate on the effects of climate change and the presented interpretation, basically of “non”-effects. I try to comment based on memory but without the slides available, hence this is not an in-depth analysis but reflects my understanding of some major elements and their way of interpretation. The presentation consisted mainly of data put in reference to quantified consequences of climate change or its mitigation effort to global GDP. This is certainly a controversial approach but can still be considered a useful basis to discuss the topic particularly when dealing with climate change “skeptical parties”.

As for any (macro-) economic model it is fair to say that as long as one does not know in detail how it is built and what the sensitivities are with respect to the variation of several input-parameters it is impossible to assess its intrinsic soundness. This becomes even more true when considering secondary/collateral effects of a measure and its assumed cost or benefit.

To given an example, in mobility, avoiding the emissions of CO2 by phasing out the use of fossil fuel driven combustion engines and by substituting those with electric ones powered either by stored electricity or hydrogen or else has the secondary effect of enhancing significantly the air quality in cities as not only the CO2 emissions are avoided but also dozens of noxious molecules (NOx, dust,…). It is understood that the amount of investment needed for changing the technology to non-emitting mobility is attributed to “the cost of avoiding climate change” but it seems that neither the investment itself is counted for contributing to growth of global GDP as such nor the inherent secondary effects like reducing the cost of medical treatment due to health problems linked to bad air-quality in cities are taken as benefit. Also the presentation does not integrate the potential benefit of these new technologies to be source of wealth when sold for decades to come. Again, as mentioned in the beginning, a detailed analysis of the underlying calculation is not possible.

Rebuking “en bloc” the arguments given would however only raise the acceptance level of the opinion expressed as some aspects of the presentation could certainly be considered pertinent. It is the selection of data and the intrinsic sensitivity of linked effects which often make a model either coherent or misleading.To me, intensive discussions down to the details of the figures/ratios presented would serve the cause best and it seemed that Professor Lomborg was open for discussion and arguments, hence one could do this at a later stage. I believe that most arguments can be dismantled or/and at least their interpretation. Still, it is useful to sharpen one’s mind and argument also as most current leaders (business or even policy), despite favourable public declarations, do not envisage to change the economic model in substance. Otherwise, the situation of current global environmental stress would have been avoided in first place just by intrinsically adapting the economic model gradually over the past 50 years or so to cope with sustainability of resources. One must not be “surprised” by such a behaviour, on the contrary it is probably impossible for the Head of any major company/organisation, e.g. of the oil-gas extraction business to present to the shareholders the plan to skip payment of dividends for the next 20+ years, to divest the profitable business of oil-gas extraction and to invest into the development of a new decarbonised but yet unproven/expensive or not even technically existing energy technology which might work in 10-20 years (or not), or be even then “out of the market” because another company found a better solution. It might be considered symptomatic that e.g. Elon Musk (with Tesla cars) has no historical ties to the automotive industry nor to the traditional energy business, nor did he partner with existing car manufacturers or energy companies, otherwise he would probably never have proven that it is possible to build non-polluting cars (when driving, the full-cycle balance of components is still more complex) at competitive prices and that hence the business case of traditional (European) car makers is obsolete by now. Surely there are plenty of challenges still to overcome, there are other solutions possible, e.g. hydrogen based, but in essence he demonstrated that at least ONE solution is possible, hence it is possible.

The EU car manufacturers tend of course to delay progress and prefer to “optimize” emission testing results than to accept the fact that the era of fossil fuel driven combustion engines is basically over by logic. The consequences on employment in some EU countries currently strongly exposed might be considered so significant that policy could try to hinder progress more than favoring it. Also, many economies, certainly those of the EU Member States depend heavily on revenues deriving from current taxation of fossil fuels’ consumption and losing that revenue stream is certainly not envisage-able for politicians acting under fiscal stress.

Hence, to me, the approach towards mitigating climate change must embrace all possibilities of a bottom-up approach, strengthening the final consumer to act responsibly, freeing the entrepreneur-ism of the many and not believe that an elitist top-down approach will bring the best solution, if any. It is furthermore comforting the above statement and revealing that the most notorious person combating climate change is a pupil of 16 years of age and not the presidents of the institutions of the EU, the one of the UN, or someone of the IMF or the WB etc. Going into more substance I do see several points worth of debate in the presentation:

Putting “Global GDP” as sole reference is by definition not allocating parts of global GDP to particular continents, countries or regions nor does it make a difference if all “wealth” is allocated to one country, one social or even ethical class of humans or whether it is rather evenly distributed.

The allocation of global resources is hence considered free to those who have the highest financial strength to secure them and leaves aside basically all ethical, social, environmental, etc.. effects, they are considered negligible. This assumption might be openly challenged as in mid to long run all of those “negligible” effects are the source of conflicts which then affect global GDP.

Being deliberately cynical, variation of global GDP is very different if either the poorest billion of humans are affected (global GDP does barely change if they cease to exist) or whether it is the richest billion of humans to bear the consequences (basically OECD and some billionaires to disappear). If then, such founded “global policy decisions” lead to “some” climate change having negative consequences mostly on those who are too poor to save themselves, global GDP is barely affected and hence the policy path leading to this kind of decision of resource allocation might even seem most pertinent. As a humanist but also looking at implied long term consequences I hope that such an attitude can only be considered purely fictional.

The presentation does not allocate added value geographically (from extraction/mining or creation to production, distribution and consumption) and ignores whether long distances of shipment occur. If, as in the past, environmental degradation has no “cost”, then effectively long distance transport is cheap and hence contributes to the inequal attribution of “value added” within the global system as benefiting from social dumping is pertinent. Global GDP as reference is indifferent to geographical fiscal and work-force cost optimisation. Security of supply of any sub-part of the globe has no value in that presentation and hence it postulates that free flow of resources is always possible (no embargoes, no “ethical policy choices” etc. occur.) which seems not arguable considering history of mankind.

To sum up, global GDP could be a pertinent reference if one were to compare economies of different “inhabited planets” but is too large a scale for assessing the challenges on our globe. The “too” inequal allocation of resources have always led to all forms of unrest and will continue to do so. If one inhabited region is about to turn into a desert or to be flooded due to rising sea levels the residents will migrate elsewhere and they will do so whether they are welcome in the place of arrival or not. In late antiquity, the wave of migration based on the Huns’ expansionism (although most likely not climate driven) can serve as an example including with regards to the consequences on the then established inhabitants of large parts of Europe.

Taking some detailed figures of the shown slides allow also for some quite positive rational to embrace the challenge:

– The cost of economic transition for mitigating climate change for Europe was calculated at around 300 billion euro/year as base case. Now, if these 300 billion euro/year can roughly be allocated by simply reducing costs spent in the current system, like phasing out the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and imports of fossil fuels (totaling 250 billion euro/year for Europe according to IEA and EC), even without «valuing» EU job growth, increased security of supply and better air quality, then the immediate benefits of investing actively in climate change mitigation efforts seem to prevail and should guide policy decisions asap despite the resistance of those “losing out”.

To cite the sources: IEA data states that roughly 100 bcm/year of subsidies are still allocated to fossil fuels in Europe (cited in the EC in house EPSC publication «10 trends to reshaping climate and energy») and roughly 150 bcm/y are paid to import fossil fuels to the EU according to the EC (in November 2018: COMMUNICATION COM(2018) 773: «A Clean Planet for all – A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy» and supporting documents).

– If climate change mitigation is taken seriously it is one important basis for industrial and economic policy for the immediate future and for a long time:

Professor Lomborg’s conclusions of firstly assisting the emergence of massive “green R+D” and secondly, although he does not believe in the necessity to reduce CO2 emissions, but if one does, he rightly recommends a global CO2 emission pricing system can be supported. As it is unrealistic that the latter can be achieved fast, it is of great importance to design asap a fair trading system, based on a functioning within-EU cost allocation, where the environmental footprint of goods and services is correctly taken into account and, if necessary, shall include EU border taxation of products and services which do not reflect this. Negotiations on international level, e.g. within the WTO or even the current free-trade negotiations (CETA, TTIP+,…) must embrace this as an EU position asap.

It is understood that not all EU Member States are in favour of mitigating climate change, this resistance has to be overcome or a smaller area of the EU has to go ahead. If the EU institutions have any sense, then they must strengthen the possibility of the European citizen to live in a prosperous and healthy, sustainable environment. By doing so and taking into account security of supply aspects including components of technology, the solutions developed can certainly be exported to those parts of the world where demographic growth and the current lack of sustainable prosperity for those citizens forms a need. To end, a liberal approach could mean to free the potential of all (bottom up), to be open to new solutions, to incentivise and educate all to act responsibly and not to resign to delegate the search of solutions to the established actors alone.

The challenge is significant but can be dealt with positively by embracing the efforts of all and by avoiding to impose the costs of change to the captive middle-class citizen. Certainly one of the cheapest aspects of tackling the challenge is to allow for intensive debate of all stakeholders and I hope that such initiatives are intensified by the European Parliament, euromind, ALDE and others.