Extreme counteraction measures on climate change can do more harm than good. Bjorn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, argues that completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels will damage struggling developing nations. Copenhagen Consensus Centre research shows that using coal power to drive economic growth in Bangladesh is an effective policy with benefits estimated to be greater than $250bn, easily offsetting its $9.7bn cost. So what’s the alternative? Lomborg suggests investing in more research to develop renewable sources of energy to outcompete fossil fuels so that any development is financially sustainable.
Why does this matter? The use of fossil fuels may not be the doom and gloom portrayal we’re used to. It might be controversial, but a recent working paper finds that the world – and especially Africa – will actually be better off in a high fossil scenario. Don’t expect public opinion on the matter to shift suddenly, though.
(The commentary contained in the above article does not constitute an offer or a solicitation, or a recommendation to implement or liquidate an investment or to carry out any other transaction. It should not be used as a basis for any investment decision or other decision. Any investment decision should be based on appropriate professional advice specific to your needs.)
For full access to Macro Hive's insights produced by some of the most experienced researchers in the market today