Would that be the report by New Zealand’s Productivity Commission? I haven’t dug into the detail, but presumably the author of this article on The Conversation has. He states that:
A recent report issued by the New Zealand Productivity Commission has found that this is an achievable goal, even under modest forecasts of technological progress and increases in carbon price.
He is not a scientist, and his work has been widely challenged for misrepresenting the actual science.
The UK has adopted a similar goal to New Zealand’s, and the EU is also intending to adopt that goal.
Returning to the idea of ‘adapting to a warmer planet’, what will the cost be of losing large chunks of cities like Sydney, Melbourne, New York, Venice, Amsterdam and so forth (i.e. many of the world’s most populous cities) to sea level rise? Then of course there are the changes in weather, that may drown large proportions of some countries’ populations while leaving others without anything to drink - and unable to grow food! Lomborg seems not to understand what the actual costs of inaction could be - and is happy to bet humanity’s future on the idea that he’s right while the scientists warning of danger are wrong.
He was the guy who persuaded me that global warming was a problem. I read his book, and realised that he had no idea what he was talking about.
