Adam,you're correct , you'd be much better off living next door to a nuclear power plant,as you get more dadiactive fallout ,not to mention visible pollutants, from a coal power plant. Bjorn Lomborg's logical argument is a nice change from the "chicken little sky is falling "brigade . thanks.

dr ian hilliar, sanctuary point, Australia

Not that it makes any difference for the argument, but let's be precise: "0.00038C - or about one three-thousandth of a degree" , shouldn't that be "about one three (or four, actually)-ten-thousandth of a degree"?

ok

Onno Krijn, Amsterdam, nl

This isn't a 100 billion indulgence, we are getting electricity for it - ok at a somewhat higher cost than other technologies, but still, the argument presented is highly disingenuous for someone so concerned with economics (though who is not, in fact, a trained economist).

Dominic, London,

1. There is no AGW only natural cycles
2. We are now cooling thanks to cold PDO (30 yr. cycle)
3. Ice caps will not melt sea levels will not rise.
4. CO2 only makes earth greener and harvests richer (fertilizer).
5. UN IPCC provides crooked data
6. Governments + main stream media can't be trusted

Ron de Haan , Chiriqui, Panama

Technology grows exponentially, not linearly.
In 1946, a computer cost $10000000, weighed 50000kg, & did 5000 sums/sec.
Today: a pc costs $500, is 2kg, & does 20,000,000,000 sums/s.

Thats 1/2000th cost & 1/25000th weight for 4,000,000 times the computing power. Imagine what we can do by 2068.

Joe Thomas-Kerr, Sydney, Australia

Mr. Nordhaus's estimate of the cost of global warming has been discredited as far too conservative, i.e., it will be much more costly because he discounts low probability, high impact effects. Moreover, it is already out of date because we have already seen many knock on effects not predicted.

steve, Nevada City, California , USA

Bjorn is right that if AGW costs $15 trillion this century, ignore it. This EV figure is childish. In part, GDP itself is to blame. If the world loses a grain harvest of $2 trillion, the cost isn't $2 trillion, it is 2 billion starved or about $2 quadrillion. Use $15 quadrillion and recalculate.

Phillip Huggan, Winnipeg, Canada

Do some independent reading and you learn that carbon dioxide has a negligible effect on climate. The main greenhouse gas is <water>. It is responsible for up to 95% of the "greenhouse" effect. There is simply ZERO justification for any restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Ian M, Glenwood, NB, Canada

I was having difficulties dealing with all the stats in the article but the basic crux seems to be that we're whistling in the wind. Why not save all the expenditure on weaponary and spend on building a giant sun-shield in space instead - to cool things down if they get too hot?

Cirep G Nol, London,

Nothing to do with Global warming at all. It's all about energy security, taxation and control. It's a nice excuse to convince people to take more nuclear power, pay more taxes and give the state more power. Face it.

chris, brighton, uk

Of course the whole policy is a nonsense . Firstly the globe has not warmed since 1998 and has cooled over the past few years. Second China, by building two coal fired stations a week will emit as much extra CO2 as Britain’s total every two weeks. And third, 3,600 wind turbines will produce less than two conventional power stations, and only then when the wind blows. As one sensible commentator said just last week, this is the economics of the madhouse.

Ted Saunders, Richmond, England

By developing a cheap realistic alternative to oil that can power transport like the car the gains are stupendous. Hundreds of billions of £/$ annually would stay in the West instead of flowing into the pockets of OPEC and Russia. See how much posturing Chavez and Putin do when they are broke...

Anthony Lester, Brum,

Bjorn is correct. Wasting money for negligible benefit. However, there is no evidence of any significant global warming; far from it. We should be fearing the effects of global cooling due to the sun having gone quiet (where are the sunspots?) and the oceans having gone into their cooling phase.

Phillip Bratby, Tiverton, England

I have read Mr.Lomburg's books and I know he is extremely thorough with figures, not necessarily having them EXACT but having them in an approximative ball park with some acceptable probability. I have a great respect for the likes of him who maintain common sense in this world.

Adrian, Crawley, West Sussex

Yes, but we shouldn't forget that many "green" steps are worth taking for other reasons also. For instance, house insulation cuts fuel bills in the long term, while cutting down on car use improves road safety, helps asthmatics, speeds up bus journeys and makes them more reliable.

Barry, Wallington, UK

basically agree but you're misrepresenting the cost figures, if we spend £100bn on wind farms then we'd spend the money employing people to manufacture, build and sustain them. these people then spend the money on other goods (multiplier effect) so if spent wisely the money doesn't leave the economy

Hamish, London,

Peter: The important figure is not decimal places but significant figures (i.e. digits which aren't zero). On the main statistic under review, the effect of Brown's policy, Lomburg goes to two significant figures, which is perfectly reasonable. The alternative is to round down to zero.

Sam B, Bristol,

Carol

You are absolutely right that paying money to Brazil and other Amazon countries is an effective measure against global warming.

This is exactly what carbon offsetting is about - part of the Kyoto protocol which Mr Lomburg so derides.

Peter , London,

Mr Lomburg is a professor of statistics - as such he should know quoting probabilistic modelling results to 7 decimal places is ludicrous. This basic mistake in his statistical analysis puts a major question mark over the rest of his assumptions.

Peter, London,

There are two reasons to cut emissions- Firstly we need energy security, so enhancing energy efficiency, and building low carbon energy infrastructure such as nuclear powerstations is important. Secondly we can't ask others to cut emissions if we don't put our own house in order.

Simon Mills, London, UK

Decreasing birth rates come with development and also well proven (recently) that costs will makes people switch preferences in an eyeblink. So cheap renewable energy and huge funding for the developing world is a simplistic but hugely more beliveable solution to the impending climate problems

AD Crawford, Glasgow,

Perhaps it would be cheaper to just pay the money straight to Brazil and other Amazon countries to keep the rainforest in tact.

Carol, Leicester, UK

Mr. Lomburg is right on the enormous cost of a little cooling if the UN climate panel is correct.

Technology is the solution. New York City has warmed about 4°C in the last hundred years from the urban heat island effect. But New Yorkers aren't roasting; they have air conditioning.

Ross, Chicago, IL, USA

There have been climate changes for millions of years CO2 or no CO2 and our planet and people survived. Anyway even the socalled experts state that they are 90% sure that climate change is caused by CO2. How on earth they worked out this figure? The conclusion is don't do anything leave it to nature

Michael Kennedy, Sydney, Australia

It was NEVER about global warming...more about TAXING...politicians hijacked it as a"nice little earner" and the saps fell for it,,..look at the revenue from GATSO speeding fines and then do comparisons to accident rates? The Canadians did ..and dumped the GATSO it was a "TAX" scam..Typical NULAB

Tony, Derby, UK

Mr Lomborg should try living near a coal mine or coal-fed power station to understand that simple "economics" is not the only factor to be considered.

The negative health effects from these industries on local populations is appalling and everything should be done to mover away from them asap.

Adam , Newcastle, Australia

Global warming has existed since the last ice age. Despite the rapid increase in carbon dioxide and the methane from the ocean the earth is cooling.
I have not seen a single argument for a change in the ice age-warming -ice age cycle. We should fear global cooling.

Mike, LA, USA

Well how about reducing the global population instead of worring quite so much about "our cumulative climate saving" plan. Surel more people = more pollution, or have I missed something?

Anna, Birmngham,

Unassailable arguments. Brilliant article.

Let's forget about the carbon con and bailouts for banking boobs and start pumping our liquid from the apparently bottomless well of our central banks' cash into the developing world instead.

All we need is the will and the pipeline.

Jono, Carmarthen,