On Tuesday, our CEO Juliet Davenport took part in a debate with Bjorn Lomborg, author of ‘the Skeptical Environmentalist’, at the Bristol Festival of Ideas. They were joined by Peter Madden, Director of Forum for the Future and Professor Jim Longhurst of the University of West England to discuss Lomborg’s case for ‘smarter solutions to climate change.’

Lomborg presented an eloquent and impassioned account of why he thinks that drastic carbon cuts are ‘an expensive way of doing very little good’ when it comes to climate change. His beef seems to be that the existing strategy of international talks and treaties simply isn't effective enough, and it’s not that urgent to seek solutions to climate change – succour for the scientifically sceptical. He believes we can delay cutting carbon and take time to invest in research and development (R&D) in green technologies until a silver bullet is discovered.

Juliet’s counter-argument concentrated on the stages of R&D and the urgency around climate change – she didn’t engage with Lomborg on his “either/or” approach to tackling climate change versus third-world diseases. Instead she advocates a holistic approach; from politicians taking bold and decisive action, to the decentralisation of electricity, R&D is just one piece of the puzzle. Making green energy “so cheap that everyone will want to use it” makes sense. But for Lomborg, R&D is something to be done instead of deploying the clean energy technology available now.

Juliet explained how technologies need to be deployed and tested to find out if they work which can, in turn, push down the cost curve. In Lomborg’s view, green technology is at the same point now as computer technology was during the 1950s. In contrast, others believe that grid parity for solar is close to becoming a reality, and contend that solar panel prices fell by 21% this year alone because of deployment in Spain and China. The incredible impetus for investment in R&D for healthcare and warfare, with the huge returns on investment, is an example of successfully deploying R&D. Renewables need similar industrial motivation, so the prize at the end needs to be real, and large!   It’s not a choice between investing in R&D or investing in deployment – we need to do both.

According to Lomborg, panic about climate change leads to bad decisions. But people aren’t panicking, Juliet contends – and despite the compelling science, there is an overwhelming lack of action. Where they agreed is that communication on climate change should focus on positive messages. There are wider benefits, both directly and indirectly, in investing in renewable energy; from changing consumer behaviour to providing a more secure source of energy. Aligning these solutions is key to bringing forward renewables today.

Lomborg dismisses the potential positive feedback loops in the climate system – e.g. the melting of the Arctic tundra could release locked methane gas which could trigger runaway climate change. As we wrote on the blog earlier this week, science is beginning to reveal the risks we are taking, but we still don’t fully understand them. 

Economic modelling, espoused by Lomborg, is notoriously complex and can be inaccurate; the impact of the accumulation of the consequences of inaction is uncertain – and can’t be addressed through cost/benefit analysis and GDP figures. Not only are human development issues intertwined with climate change, whole ecosystems are finely balanced and may not be able to adapt in the way that Lomborg optimistically hopes they can.

It’s often said that debate can invigorate an agenda; it’s useful to hear new viewpoints or different ideas to breathe fresh life into a problem. But Lomborg is simply slowing down action. Action that, as was vividly shown in this week’s headlines about unprecedented level of carbon emissions, is more urgent than ever.

To read another point of view on the debate visit Peter Madden’s blog.