Having been engaged in several galas and other celebratory events lately, I do enjoy the idea of inviting a provocative keynote speaker or perhaps even someone notorious to jazz things up and, why not, attract more guests. The organisers of the 2024 Global Fund Search Investment & Networking Symposium certainly set the bar high this year, not just by inviting sustainability influencer/author Sasja Beslik but by putting him in charge of interviewing on stage the so-called “skeptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg. The program’s appeal produced the desired effect: the room was full. However, I did observe that even though we were generously invited to grab a copy of Lomborg’s new book and get it signed, several people passed on the opportunity – not just because they didn’t have space in their luggage.
The symposium wasn’t a sustainability conference per se, although several discussion tables were dedicated to the topic (more on this in the coming weeks). ‘Defence vs. Sustainability’, ‘ESG Integration in equity portfolios’, ‘Fixed income in a climate transition perspective’ were just a few of the themes on the exciting programme of 18 round tables. Hence one could reasonably expect the audience to be composed of, at least in part, sincere responsible investors. So why were we so upset by the intervention of someone who calls himself an ‘environmentalist’? Not only that, but Bjørn Lomborg is also the founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, the stated goal of which is to identify the most cost-effective ways to improve global welfare. What could go wrong?
Do the magic!
Ironically, it is precisely under the pretence of saving the world while helping us understand the truth, questioning so-called mass media lies that Lomborg engages in the oh-so-popular technique of spreading ‘fear, uncertainty and doubt’ (FUD). This is his signature technique and many people have already debunked his data cherry-picking1 ever since he published his first book in 2001. His argument, in a nutshell, is that we have bigger fish to fry than climate change, and that’s what makes this subject so intriguing for an otherwise serious conference. Perhaps, as when I go to the funfair’s magic show with my kids, I should have sat down there in the beautiful dining room of the Hotel d’Angleterre and enjoyed this prestidigitation act with candid eyes instead of trying to find the visible flaws and figure out the tricks.
But I couldn’t let it slide. I don’t like it when I’m taken for an idiot and I find it hard enough to convince investors on a day-to-day basis that investing should be more sustainable not to stand up here in defence of transition investing. Perhaps a full detailed rebuttal of Lomborg’s ‘facts’ would be too tedious a read but at the very least, let’s take a peak backstage together and ask some questions.
The act
To set the stage at the beginning of this presentation, slides on screen and all, Lomborg provides a few examples to show that ‘things are not as bad as we are led to believe they are’. Let’s take three of these: forest fires (Lomborg’s evidence shows that they are decreasing not increasing), people dying from heat (it seems the trend is not increasing and instead, far more people are dying from cold than from heat) and polar bears (their population isn’t decreasing as we are led to believe it is).
Instead of investigating the source of the data, the collection process, the time range or other quantitative factors like others have already done, I’d rather illustrate how we are being subjected to a distraction, just like in a real magic show. If there are fewer forest fires globally (in terms of burned area/year as a percentage of global land), it may be because we take better care of the forest in some regions but perhaps also because we are actually running out of forest coverage. Whether they are increasing or not, forest fires remain a huge issue as they contribute to further diminishing the percentage of the globe’s surface that has the capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
Similarly, what if Lomborg can show that people dying from heat is not an increasing issue? Good for him. People may not die directly from heat but they do die from lack of food and drinking water and climate change is and will increasingly be responsible for the scarcity of those resources. What about polar bears? I’m glad Lomborg brought up these iconic animals. A recent report by anti-climate policy organisation the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that indeed, despite widespread beliefs, there is no evidence of the number of polar bears decreasing and in some cases it has been found to have increased thanks to strictly enforced hunting bans. If we believe the optimism of the source2, this is a good example of conservation success. It indicates that, just like in the story of Noah’s ark, small populations of endangered animals can grow back. Polar bears strengthen hope that it is not too late to preserve biodiversity when there are still some individuals alive. But demonstrate that we should stop transitioning from fossil fuels, this example does not.
FUD payback
Now it’s my turn to generate some FUD around Mr. Lomborg’s purpose. During the Q&A, I asked him about his end goal. It is one thing to throw some (irrelevant) facts around to distract us, but why? According to him, there are better ways to spend our money than to transition from fossil energy. His latest book “Best Things First” is subtitled “the 12 most efficient solutions for the world’s poorest and our global SDG promises”.
Here are all 12 of them for those of you that haven’t had the privilege of picking up a copy: tuberculosis, education, maternal and newborn health, agricultural R&D to provide more and cheaper food, malaria, e-procurement to reduce corruption, nutrition, chronic diseases, childhood immunisation, more trade, highly skilled migration and land tenure security.
No surprise here: climate change is not one of them. That this issue isn’t cheap to solve, we already know, but I don’t need to tell you that replacing one concern by a dozen (albeit cheaper to fix) others isn’t sustainable.
So, perhaps Lomborg’s end goal is simply to sell more books, as suggested to me off stage. I understand. Everyone has to make a living. Books and talks have been Lomborg’s bread and butter for close to a quarter of a century. The show must go on even if it’s about repeating mostly the same thing in slightly different forms or forums. He is also looking to fill the coffers of his Copenhagen Consensus Centre. But precisely who is funding his research? Foundations such as these are supported by well-meaning philanthropists, but also more self-serving organisations. The plastics industry, mind you, has become very good at funding the spreading of FUD. Could it be why Lomborg stated that microplastics are not a big issue when asked by a member of the audience? While the Center’s webpage states that it does not accept donations from fossil fuel companies, the benefactors remain undisclosed. How can we trust an institution’s alleged research when we don’t know anything about who is funding it, especially when we detect suspicious FUDing? There are lobbyists and ad agencies who work for fossil fuel companies, for example. Will the Centre accept their donations?
There are many more positive contributions to be made to the world by a well-known and charismatic speaker like Bjørn Lomborg other than distracting potential sustainable investors at the end of an intense conference. If the solutions proposed in the book make so much sense, why try to confuse financially literate people with cherry-picked facts and implied flawed logic? And why, oh why, are references not properly listed in the book like in any respectable research piece? I rest my case.
1. For example, Climate Fact Check, Bjorn Lomborg posts misleading claim about forest fires using ‘data shown in isolation’ and Maths Nilsson, ARC conference: No, you can’t trust Lomborg’s numbers
↩
2. There are other sources that show a more nuanced picture: the WWF points out that the poplar bear population trends are different depending on the areas, and the Associated Press as recently as September 24, 2024 reports that warming climate threatens Hudson Bay’s polar bears supporting the idea that the polar bears’ conservation success may only be short lived.
↩
