In a scathing critique of global climate policies, prominent commentator Conrad Black has highlighted what he describes as the exorbitant financial toll of climate alarmism. Drawing on analysis from climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg and economist Stephen Moore, Black argues that approximately $16 trillion has been expended over the past two decades on green transition initiatives with negligible returns for society.
The Premier Climate Skeptic: Bjorn Lomborg's Perspective
Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and former director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, stands as a leading voice challenging what Black terms the "Green Terror." Lomborg has consistently questioned the apocalyptic predictions of climate activists, many of whom forecasted catastrophic, unlivable conditions across large swaths of the planet due to carbon emissions—predictions that have largely failed to materialize according to his assessment.
A Colossal Financial Misallocation
Stephen Moore, an American columnist and economist cited by Black, recently emphasized that this $16 trillion expenditure represents what he calls "a shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources." Moore contends that not a single life has been saved through these climate-focused investments. Furthermore, he argues that countless lives in developing nations have been adversely affected or shortened due to policies restricting access to affordable, reliable energy sources.
The critique extends beyond mere financial waste to encompass what Moore describes as painful opportunity costs. He speculates about how these vast resources could have been redirected toward addressing urgent global humanitarian needs instead.
The Alternative Uses for Wasted Trillions
Moore presents a compelling counterfactual scenario, suggesting the $16 trillion could have been deployed to dramatically improve living conditions for the world's most vulnerable populations. Potential applications include:
- Enhancing drinking water quality and sanitation infrastructure in impoverished regions
- Funding medical interventions to combat deadly diseases like malaria that disproportionately affect poor countries
- Building and staffing educational facilities to combat illiteracy in underserved communities
- Addressing other pressing social and economic challenges that directly impact human wellbeing
According to this perspective, the Western world's preoccupation with climate change has diverted attention and resources away from initiatives that could have tangibly improved millions of lives.
Political Figures and the "Green New Deal Scam"
Moore's criticism extends to specific political actors and organizations. He singles out figures like former U.S. Vice President Al Gore—whose documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" helped popularize climate concerns—along with current politicians including Joe Biden and John Kerry. Moore suggests these individuals and groups like the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund should be "placed on a wall of shame" for their roles in advancing what he characterizes as the "Green New Deal scam."
Particular scorn is reserved for the Biden administration's $400 billion investment in green energy, which Moore dismisses as an outright "sham." In contrast, he praises former President Donald Trump's repeal of carbon dioxide emission taxes as potentially "his most successful pro-growth policy," arguing that carbon regulations have imposed over $1 trillion in economic costs.
The Real Inconvenient Truth
Black concludes that while climate alarmism has generated substantial profits for those catering to what he calls "this faddish and insane wild goose chase," society has seen "not one penny of measurable payoff." The real inconvenient truth, according to this analysis, is that trillions have been squandered on addressing a "false crisis" while genuine human suffering persists unaddressed due to misplaced priorities.
This perspective challenges mainstream environmental narratives and raises fundamental questions about resource allocation in global policy-making. Whether one agrees with these conclusions or not, the $16 trillion figure represents a staggering sum whose alternative uses warrant serious consideration in any balanced assessment of climate policy effectiveness.
