Lomborg critiques Climate Week priorities: billions for health over trillions for climate pledges

During UN Climate Week in New York, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, argued that the world is neglecting the urgent needs of the poor as elites push costly climate programs. In a position piece circulated amid the events, Lomborg contended that billions spent on traditional climate policy yield limited benefits, while targeted health and development interventions could save millions of lives today.

He noted that since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the share of global energy supplied by renewables has risen only modestly, from about 12% to roughly 14%, even as governments have spent an estimated $14 trillion on climate policies. He warned that if current trends persist, it would take centuries to reach universal reliance on renewable energy. The United Nations projects that even if all unconditional pledges are fulfilled, global emissions in 2030 would still be about 19% above 2019 levels. Moreover, last year the world spent more than $2 trillion on climate policies, and by 2050 the net zero transition could cost as much as $27 trillion annually, with returns pegged at roughly 17 cents per dollar spent.

Lomborg then outlined a series of health and development interventions he described as vastly more cost-effective. He cited a $5-per-use hand-pumped neonatal resuscitator intended to treat birth asphyxia, arguing that such devices could avert about 166,000 maternal deaths and 1.2 million infant deaths for a $2.1 billion investment, with each dollar invested generating about $87 in social returns—an efficiency he said dwarfs many climate investments. He also pointed to vaccines, estimating that extending childhood immunization could save 500,000 lives annually for roughly $1.7 billion, with about $100 in social returns per dollar. Additional interventions included a $1.1 billion malaria effort that could avert around 200,000 deaths and yield about $48 in social returns per dollar, and $5.5 billion in agricultural research and development expected to raise food yields by about 10%, reducing hunger for roughly 100 million people.

Taken together, Lomborg argued that these investments offer far higher social returns per dollar than many climate policies, and that their impact on health and development would be immediate and tangible. He cautioned that if only wealthy nations carry through on climate pledges, the per-person costs could reach between $5,000 and $20,000 per year, prices that he said would be unaffordable for most people. He noted that even in the UN climate model, the difference between current rich-country policies and a full net-zero by 2050 is minimal, given that the majority of emissions come from China, India and Africa, where cheap energy is essential for poverty alleviation.

The author then framed the debate around energy innovation. He argued that progress will come not from doubling down on expensive, universal climate mandates but from accelerating green research and development to make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels. In his view, breakthroughs that lower energy costs would enable broad access to reliable power, while lifting people out of poverty would reduce vulnerability to climate shocks and improve resilience. He urged policymakers to integrate climate risk planning with health and development priorities rather than treating them as separate tracks.

Lomborg concluded by urging a pivot away from a narrow climate agenda that has dominated global discourse for three decades toward a more holistic approach that prioritizes energy access, food security and health as immediate climate resilience measures. He described the current climate-week milieu as a continuation of a trend that prioritizes high-cost promises over practical gains for the world’s poorest populations. The piece attributes the viewpoints to Lomborg, who leads the Copenhagen Consensus and has written works on economic optimization and policy prioritization.

Climate and environment officials, development experts and global observers will watch how this debate shapes the prominence of climate policy versus immediate poverty alleviation in the weeks ahead at UN Climate Week and beyond.