Opinion piece argues climate ‘doomsday’ predictions have repeatedly failed; scientists urge caution

Bjorn Lomborg, a Copenhagen Consensus economist and visiting fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, argues in a Sept. 15 opinion column that a long history of environmental “doomsday” predictions has proven false and that contemporary climate alarmism repeats past errors. In the column, Lomborg cited a recent peer‑reviewed tally he said counted nearly 100 high‑profile environmental predictions over the past half century that, he wrote, failed to materialize, and urged a shift from costly net‑zero targets toward major investments in low‑carbon energy research and development.

Lomborg highlighted historical examples including the 1968 book "The Population Bomb" and the 1972 report "Limits to Growth," saying their grim forecasts did not come to pass because innovation and economic growth expanded food and resource supplies. He also contested recent media coverage of the Great Barrier Reef, saying published monitoring data show the reef’s coral cover is near its fourth‑highest level since comprehensive records began in 1986, and argued that alarmist narratives have overstated near‑term collapse risks. Lomborg asserted that deaths from floods, droughts, storms and wildfires have declined substantially over the past century and cited a widely discussed meta‑study he said found projected global calorie production in 2050 would be only marginally lower under worse climate scenarios than under none.

The column reviewed policy implications of that assessment, arguing that net‑zero pledges embraced by many wealthy nations are costly and inefficient. Lomborg cited economic calculations he described as showing a roughly 7‑to‑1 ratio of costs to benefits for policies aimed at achieving net zero in the 21st century and an annual price tag of about $27 trillion. He recommended boosting public and private research funding to drive down the future cost of low‑carbon technologies so that cleaner energy becomes the least‑cost option globally.

Lomborg framed his critique as a call for realism: he argued that many environmental successes of the past — reductions in urban air and water pollution in rich countries, expanding forests in some regions, and rising agricultural productivity — were achieved through innovation and improved regulation rather than through the kinds of draconian measures proposed by earlier alarmists.

Scientists and analysts reached for comment said Lomborg’s column emphasized important elements of past environmental progress while understating the degree of current and projected climate‑related risk as assessed by the broader scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its most recent assessment, concluded that human‑caused warming has already increased the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events, contributed to sea‑level rise, and raised the risk of crossed thresholds in ecosystems. The IPCC and many peer‑reviewed studies also warn that the pace and scale of projected impacts will depend heavily on future emissions and on policy choices now.

Experts said historical declines in climate‑related mortality and deaths from extreme events are widely documented and reflect improvements in early warning systems, infrastructure, public health and emergency response. Those gains, however, do not by themselves negate projected increases in climate hazards or the economic costs associated with more frequent or intense events, particularly in regions with less adaptive capacity, researchers noted. Economists who study climate policy emphasize that cost‑benefit assessments vary with assumptions about discount rates, the timing and scope of mitigation, and what impacts are included. Scholarly estimates of the costs and benefits of ambitious mitigation range widely; the debate over the relative value of near‑term emissions cuts versus longer‑term technological innovation continues in academic and policy circles.

On the question of coral reefs, monitoring organizations and reef scientists report complex and variable trends. Coral cover and reef condition can rebound in some areas after bleaching events, but researchers also point to repeated mass bleaching episodes linked to marine heatwaves in the 2010s and early 2020s that have caused long‑term declines in many reef systems. Conservationists say local protection, reduced pollution and global emissions reductions all play roles in reef resilience.

The opinion column touched on a broader, ongoing policy tension: how much to prioritize immediate emissions reductions through deployment of available low‑carbon technologies versus increased public investment in research to produce cheaper, scalable technologies that could be adopted worldwide. Proponents of rapid mitigation argue that reducing emissions now reduces the cumulative greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and lowers the risk of irreversible changes, while advocates for a technology‑first approach emphasize the potential to unlock lower‑cost solutions that would make deep decarbonization both more equitable and economically attainable.

Lomborg’s piece is the latest in a series of public interventions that have sparked debate about how best to balance mitigation, adaptation and innovation. Policymakers face choices that hinge on differing evaluations of present evidence, projected impacts, equity concerns and fiscal constraints. Scientific assessments continue to stress that uncertainty in the precise magnitude and timing of impacts is not the same as an absence of risk, and that risk management options include a mix of emissions reductions, resilience building and technology development.

Public and private actors are preparing for further rounds of international climate talks and national planning cycles in which these tradeoffs will be central. Analysts say independent peer‑reviewed research, transparent accounting of costs and benefits, and ongoing monitoring of environmental trends remain essential for informing decisions about how to allocate resources between immediate mitigation efforts and long‑term innovation strategies.