Table of Contents
It’s 2025, and the climate conversation remains one of the most polarized and emotionally charged debates of our time. Everywhere you turn, there are warnings of impending doom—wildfires, rising seas, vanishing species. It seems the only acceptable stance is urgency: act now, or we’re doomed.
But what if this single-minded focus on climate catastrophe has caused us to lose sight of more balanced, effective solutions?
Bjorn Lomborg, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, offers a provocative perspective that has sparked both fierce criticism and thoughtful reflection.
Lomborg doesn’t deny climate change, let’s get that straight. He acknowledges it as a significant issue caused by human activity. What he questions is the narrative that it’s the singular, all-encompassing crisis that demands we pour limitless resources into its mitigation, often at the expense of other pressing global challenges. His argument isn’t about ignoring climate change but rather about rethinking our priorities and approaches. It’s a call for pragmatism over panic.
The Dominance of Alarmism
Climate alarmism is everywhere. From apocalyptic documentaries to headlines declaring the “last chance to save the planet,” the messaging is loud and clear: the world is on fire, and we must drop everything to put it out. While this sense of urgency has mobilized millions, it’s also had unintended consequences.
Lomborg argues that alarmism can lead to distorted policies that prioritize symbolic actions over effective ones. Take renewable energy subsidies as an example. Governments worldwide have funneled billions into wind and solar projects, often without addressing the fundamental challenges of energy storage and reliability. Meanwhile, more cost-effective, scalable solutions, like improving energy efficiency or investing in nuclear power, are sidelined because they lack the same emotional appeal.
Lomborg’s critique isn’t about dismissing renewables but about questioning whether we’re investing in them in the smartest way possible.
Alarmism also has a psychological cost. When people are bombarded with catastrophic predictions, it can lead to desensitization or even paralysis. “Why bother recycling when the planet’s doomed anyway?” becomes a common sentiment. Lomborg argues that a more balanced narrative, one that acknowledges progress and emphasizes practical solutions, could foster greater public engagement and action.
Opportunity Costs and Misplaced Priorities
One of Lomborg’s central arguments is about opportunity costs. Resources are finite, and every dollar spent on one problem is a dollar not spent on another. When wealthy nations commit trillions to combating climate change, what happens to other global challenges like poverty, malnutrition, and infectious diseases?
For instance, the World Health Organization estimates that millions of people still die annually from preventable diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. Access to clean drinking water remains a distant dream for billions. Lomborg’s research through the Copenhagen Consensus Center highlights how targeted investments in these areas could yield far greater benefits for humanity than many climate initiatives.
Consider this: eradicating malnutrition in children costs a fraction of what’s being spent on ambitious net-zero carbon goals. Yet malnutrition has an immediate, devastating impact on human potential, stunting physical and cognitive development. Lomborg’s point isn’t to pit these issues against each other but to question why our priorities aren’t more aligned with maximizing global well-being.
A Data-Driven Perspective
One of the strengths of Apocalypse Never is its reliance on data to challenge prevailing narratives. Lomborg delves into the numbers to show that, while climate change is a problem, it’s not the existential threat it’s often made out to be.
For example, he cites studies indicating that deaths from natural disasters—including those exacerbated by climate change—have declined dramatically over the past century. Improved infrastructure, technology, and disaster response systems deserve much of the credit.
Similarly, Lomborg points out that economic models predict global warming will reduce GDP by 2-4% by the end of the century. While significant, this is far from the collapse of civilization. By framing the issue in this way, he argues for proportional responses rather than extreme measures that could do more harm than good.
The Role of Innovation
If there’s one area where Lomborg’s optimism shines, it’s in the potential of innovation. He argues that technological advancements, not draconian policies, will ultimately be the key to addressing climate change. History supports this view. The Green Revolution, for example, transformed agriculture and alleviated hunger for billions without requiring people to fundamentally change their lifestyles.
In the context of climate change, Lomborg advocates for increased investment in research and development of clean energy technologies. Breakthroughs in areas like advanced nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and next-generation batteries could make renewable energy more practical and affordable, reducing emissions without the need for restrictive mandates.
Criticism and Counterarguments
Of course, Lomborg’s perspective is not without its detractors. Critics argue that his approach underestimates the urgency of climate change and overestimates the ability of future technologies to mitigate its impacts. They point out that many of the world’s poorest communities are already bearing the brunt of climate-related disasters, and delaying action could exacerbate their suffering. Others take issue with his cost-benefit analysis, arguing that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to put a price on the preservation of ecosystems or the prevention of mass extinctions. Lomborg’s emphasis on GDP impact and human-centric metrics, they say, misses the broader ethical considerations of environmental stewardship.
Bridging the Divide
What makes Lomborg’s work compelling is not that it provides all the answers but that it challenges us to ask better questions.
Are we making the most effective use of our resources?
Are we addressing the right problems with the right solutions?
And perhaps most importantly, are we being honest about the trade-offs involved?
It’s possible to take climate change seriously without succumbing to alarmism. It’s possible to invest in renewable energy while also funding solutions to malnutrition and disease. And it’s possible to acknowledge the scale of the problem while remaining optimistic about humanity’s capacity for innovation and adaptation.
A Path Forward
So, have we got our climate priorities all wrong? Lomborg’s Apocalypse Never suggests we might have, at least in part. But rather than framing this as a failure, it’s an opportunity, a chance to recalibrate, refocus, and rethink what it means to build a sustainable future. The path forward doesn’t lie in abandoning climate action but in broadening our perspective. It means recognizing that the world’s challenges are interconnected and that solutions must be as well. It means valuing data over dogma and progress over perfection. And it means believing that, with the right priorities, humanity can rise to meet not just the challenge of climate change but the myriad other crises that demand our attention.
