Analyse
Lomborg’s figure of **0.05°C** stems from a **2015 MIT study** (Paltsev et al.) modeling *unconditional* NDC pledges (those without additional financing or strengthened post-2030 commitments). However, the study’s **high-end estimate** (with conditional pledges and extended policies) projected **0.2–0.5°C** reductions by 2100. Later analyses (e.g., **Climate Action Tracker, 2021**) suggest **~0.2–0.4°C** with full implementation, including updated NDCs post-2020. His claim also omits co-benefits like reduced air pollution (saving **millions of lives annually**, per WHO) and economic gains from green tech investments (IRENA, 2020). The 'trillions' cost framing lacks context: the **IPCC AR6** notes mitigation costs (**1–4% of global GDP**) are outweighed by avoided climate damages (**5–20% of GDP by 2100**).
Achtergrond
The **Paris Agreement (2015)** relies on nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which countries update every 5 years. Early pledges were widely criticized as insufficient, but the agreement’s **ratchet mechanism** aims to escalate ambition over time. Lomborg, a **skeptic of aggressive climate policies**, frequently cites cost-benefit analyses from his think tank (**Copenhagen Consensus**), which prioritize adaptation over mitigation—a stance contested by mainstream climate economists (e.g., Stern, Nordhaus).
Samenvatting verdict
Lomborg’s claim oversimplifies the Paris Agreement’s projected impacts by relying on a narrow, low-end estimate of temperature reduction while ignoring broader benefits and cost uncertainties.