Analysis
The argument for **increased R&D investment** aligns with consensus from the IEA, IPCC, and energy economists, who emphasize that breakthroughs in storage, next-gen solar, and nuclear are needed to fully decarbonize. However, Lomborg **understates the impact of existing subsidies**: deployment-driven cost reductions (e.g., solar’s 89% price drop since 2010, per IRENA) and regulatory policies (e.g., EU carbon pricing) have **directly accelerated adoption** and emissions cuts. His **false dichotomy**—innovation *vs.* regulation—ignores that both are complementary, as seen in successful models like Germany’s *Energiewende* (which combines subsidies, R&D, and mandates).
Background
Lomborg, a controversial climate policy critic, argues in *False Alarm* (2020) that **current climate policies are economically inefficient** compared to focused R&D. His views contrast with mainstream climate economics (e.g., Stern Review, IPCC AR6), which advocate for **parallel deployment of existing technologies** alongside innovation. The **2020s have seen record renewable growth** (40% of global electricity in 2023, per Ember), largely driven by subsidies and targets—undermining his claim that these tools are ineffective.
Verdict summary
Lomborg’s claim that **innovation is critical** for green energy is broadly supported, but his **dismissal of current subsidies and regulation as ineffective** oversimplifies their proven role in scaling renewables and reducing emissions.