Britain’s Stern Report Spurs Action on Climate Change
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 10.30.06
First it was Britain’s Chief Scientist saying climate change posed more of threat to the world than terrorism. Now Sir Nicholas Stern, who was once the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank (2000 to 2003) has released a report, that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the most important he has ever received and that it is, "the final piece of the jigsaw to convince every single political leader, including those in America, China and India, that global warming must be at the top of their agenda". The Stern Report itself says that climate change “is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.” It suggests that inaction on climate change will result in a depressed economy worse the Great Depression of the 1930s. And that the financial cost will be higher than the Depression combined with the two world wars. And in human terms the resulting drought and flooding will displace 200 million people from their homes creating the largest human migration in history - all of them refugees. With up to 40% of world’s known species set for extinction. To avert this tragedy the report says we need to spend 1 per cent of global GDP, roughly what is spent worldwide on advertising, and half what the World Bank estimates would be the cost of a full-blown flu pandemic.
And a media review of the report suggests that it advocates a global greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme and that Britain will pressure Australia and other countries to join an expanded carbon trading market. And it must happen now. As Tony Blair is quoted as saying after the release of the report: "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto." The BBC have a link to the 27 page PDF summary of the report. Via ABC Online.
Finally. I just hope that all this serious talk by serious people about a very serious issue is serious.
All good stuff and no doubt another big plus for urgent action. But it's written by an economist who is set on perpetuating the existing economic system, which is the bottom line problem.
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.
There is no future in a system that worships an infinite goal i.e. more profits every year for everyone, that feeds itself from a finite resource i.e. the natural resources earth. We are already in deficit in this respect.
We have to limit growth/consumption too, which is going to be increasingly hard given the fact that there will be another 3 billion people on the planet by 2050. And most of them have been 'inspired' by and strive for an American standard of living i.e. supersize.
"the final piece of the jigsaw to convince every single political leader, including those in America..."
Good luck to him, but I think that while Bush is in office, we are in big trouble... The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see.
It's great that the economics of climate change has been analysed. I'm hopeful but sceptical that Australia will follow the UK.
We all know we need a global agreement, a global cap, even J. Howard exclaims this, but he's playing mexican standoff instead of leading... he won't sign a deal that isn't also fully committed to by all nations, particularly US, China and India.
It's a rather schoolyardish stance, someone has to step up first, why not countries that have already profited so much from coal and oil.
@BLP
I was listening to a CCE last night and he was saying we need to seperate economic growth from energy growth, a valid point I think. More on it and the topic in general here.
I saw this guy on Newsnight (BBC) last night and he seemed fairly reasonable. He looked at the 'risk' issues in an economic sense, and made the point that to do nothing ie. business as usual could cost 20% of GDP in the future, which even if you are concerned with perpetuating the economic system would seem like the worst option.
It was an interesting discussion with a US gov environmental spokesperson and an Indian representative, and various UK points of view.
The US guy was strong on the point that technology could help, and pleased me by accepting the point that to others the USA often looks only obsessed with new 'gadgets' as the way to save us, something I have observed in responses on this site.
The Indian guy made the point that yes, the emissions of India and China could increase dramatically soon, but to say to their people you should stop growth now and pay for the mistakes of the West is unfair when the West has spent 250 years creating this problem!
The environmental problems of the world are based on two human traits: 1)Most women find wealth attractive in mates, and 2) Most men are lazy. To attract a mate, men must strive to be wealthier than the next guy, which requires continual GDP growth. And because men are inherently lazy, they will look for the fastest, most profitable method of accumulating wealth. Fast and profitable generally is not environmentally sustainable.
Sorry women, but your obsession with bling is what really ruined the world. Get a bit freer with your loving and maybe the world will be saved.
Brennan, somehow I think that this tells us more about you than about the state of the world.
Go the Brennan! Like the way your brain works. Bling sure does have alot to answer for. Gross oppulence. One day humans living such lifestyles will hunted down like the rapists they are. They are raping mother earth. Mother fcukers to the letter.
"Brennan, somehow I think that this tells us more about you than about the state of the world."
What, that I am a profound analyst who understands the basic mission of DNA?
Your underhanded insult merely implies that YOU are both reactive and simple minded. If you can refute my claims, have at it.
Economics.
I'm not really keen on advocating totally new economic systems. There are a number of problems with this thinking:
1. We don't know of any economic system that works better, even in environmental terms. The record of the Soviet block is horrible, yet the profit motive was absent. Anybody wonder why?
2. Radical economic change scares people. It would slow our efforts to engage in such a front, even if we were convinced (and I for one am not).
3. Capitalism offers a wide spectrum of variants. Denmark is not the US. We can certainly push to restrain excess and bloat, while retaining a market approach.
4. There is such a huge menu of actions available under our current system, we are far from exhausting the possibilites. Let's do the doable first. Pragmatism is our friend.
5. The point the Indian makes is stupid. They can certainly ask for compensation from high-carbon countries, and apply that money to renewable energy development. But they can't re-do our industrial history with 10X the population. For one thing, it's stupid to copy mistakes, and for another, the planet does not care where the carbon comes from. The comparison is also grossly unfair. The West only became aware of the problem some 30 years ago, nearly 200 years after the industrial revolution started. India and China, OTOH, know better right now.