Stern Review on global warming

October 30, 2006 6:13 AM

Sir Nicholas Stern, British economist, issues a "Stern Review", warning of global warming (link contains 15-min video presentation, PDF executive summary, PDF slideshow, and news summary). Ends on an optimistic note for England to lead the world with solutions.
posted by stbalbach (20 comments total)

Gore to advise British on global warming.
posted by stbalbach at 6:14 AM on October 30, 2006

The full report is accessible from here.
posted by biffa at 6:34 AM on October 30, 2006

Earlier this year I was present at a lecture Stern gave as a preview to his report, attended by Professor Amartya Sen.

More info here and audio of the lecture
posted by quarsan at 6:34 AM on October 30, 2006

Gwynne Dyer's latest on global warming: A Stitch in Time.

So why can't we react as fast to global warming? Because of inertia: the mass of people and institutions to be moved is just so great.

Fixing the ozone hole was easy because neither hair-spray nor refrigerator coolants are centrally important in the economy. Changing the way we produce and use energy is not easy at all, even if PricewaterhouseCoopers are right and the ultimate level of economic sacrifice would not be that great. So many people and institutions are involved that it's hard to move fast, even if failing to do so costs us the Earth.

posted by Chuckles at 6:34 AM on October 30, 2006

I'd say its a little more than that, and that there are some clues in the response to ozone depletion for the way forward (or not) with climate change. CC is a much more complex system with a much greater number of stakeholders and most importantly I would argue, considerably larger economic implications.
The story of the Montreal Protocol, which formed the legal basis for the international effort to address ozone depletion, is a fascinating one. While the treaty can be protrayed as an environmental instrument I would also argue that it effectively allowed for economic advantages by key stakeholders. When the problem was first spotted there was considerable opposition to action. The science became firmer and public concern was built up with the release of the pictures of the ozone hole which most readers here will be familiar with. The US began to push for action on CFCs but the evidence suggests the biggest effort came after the US-based Dupont company had developed a more profitable alternative to CFCs. UK backing for the change came after the UK-based ICI came up with its own alternative. The same story underlay action by Germany and France. Only once it became economic to pursue a legal change did the change occur.
This is both interesting and fairly depressing. The response to the ozone depletion problem shows us that it is possible to come to global agreements to deal with global environmental problems but it also seems to suggest that the solutions lie in finding a way to produce sufficient economic benefits to key stakeholders to get the whole process moving. Is this a realistic possibility for dealing with climate change? There are clear methods for profiting from new environmental regulation, the creation of new industrial opportunities for example, but what scale can be achieved? How can the barriers to the adoption of the regulation be overcome in the first place?

The numbers produced by the Stern report are useful because they monetise the advantages and disadvanages but what is the extent of the influence they can have?
posted by biffa at 7:17 AM on October 30, 2006

biffa, it seems to me that at least for the western world, the chance to reduce/eliminate the economic power that the middle east wields over the rest of the world either a) trumps the corporate win you allude to, or b) will act in place of it. Should be an interesting next 20 years.
posted by sfts2 at 7:49 AM on October 30, 2006

Is it so impossible to imagine technological solutions to C02? Must the only answer be to scale back development, which is to say standards of living, for first and third world alike?
posted by A189Nut at 7:54 AM on October 30, 2006

A189NutIs it so impossible to imagine technological solutions to C02? Must the only answer be to scale back development, which is to say standards of living, for first and third world alike?

The short answer is yes, it is impossible.

There are some technical solutions, such as CO2 sequestration, but all of these cost a ton of money, meaning higher energy prices, and thus scaled back development. Global warming challenges our whole post-industrial revolution economy.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:27 AM on October 30, 2006

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

Gross world product was about $60 trillion in 2005 (CIA World Factbook). 1% of that is $600 billion. In other words, similar to the best-case-scenario costs for the Iraq war. Every year. It's probably not going to happen.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:36 AM on October 30, 2006

Is it so impossible to imagine technological solutions to C02? Must the only answer be to scale back development, which is to say standards of living, for first and third world alike?

The naivete expressed by this sentiment is rather astounding.
posted by Alex404 at 9:42 AM on October 30, 2006

To be a little less condescending, Standard of Living != GDP, and relying on future technologies to solve current problems is a very bad idea.
posted by Alex404 at 9:44 AM on October 30, 2006

sfts2: I think you're oversimplifying the number of stakeholders and their motivations and the impact this will have on their approach to CC. The western world is a complex mix of conflicting interests including politicians, industry, consumers, employees, and many more. Plenty have an interest in oil supply from wherever it comes from, including all those who like their energy costs lower than they might otherwise be. Currently not so many have an interest in the alternative to oil & gas supply from the middle east, economic or otherwise, that we are achieving an alternative. It's not totally about the money but a whole lot of it is.
posted by biffa at 9:47 AM on October 30, 2006

BTW I believe the Stern Review is historically significant as the first major government report on global warming by an economist, and not a scientist. I'm sure there have been other reports by economists but probably nothing at this level. Since global warming is really an economics problem (solution-wise), this is a positive sign. A lot has happened in 2006 on the global warming front.
posted by stbalbach at 1:16 PM on October 30, 2006

Well, I think you are all worried about the piles of horseshit filling the streets in 1950... Those of you who are American and taking the lead in eating more than you grow (a metaphor), and believe this, please take the lead and demonstrate to us all your virtue by giving up your cars, flying, electricity, refrigeration.... Give it 200 years and if we are lucky - which is to say if we don't seek a world in which my options are to walk to work or go by horseback - then they'll look back on this for the paranoia that it is.
posted by A189Nut at 1:59 PM on October 30, 2006

A189Nut - What?
posted by Bearman at 2:12 PM on October 30, 2006

stbalbach writes "BTW I believe the Stern Review is historically significant as the first major government report on global warming by an economist, and not a scientist."

Would you count the Copenhagen Consensus?

I'm not advocating for the Consensus' conclusions; just pointing them out as another government-sponsored economics-focused voice
posted by mr_roboto at 2:21 PM on October 30, 2006

Following is an excerpt from what is, apparently, the script for Austin Powers 4.

-----

DR EVIL: (to viewscreen) Why hello there, leaders of the free world. I'm sure by now you've heard I've teamed up with a new evil associate, Dr. Greenhouse Gasses.

DR GASSES: Bwahahahaha. GBLARGH!

DR EVIL: Dr Gasses and I will destroy the world. Yes we will. Unless you give us....

camera zooms in on DR EVIL's face

... 9000 billion dollars!

DR GASSES: Bwahahahaha. GBLARGH!

-------

As you can see, it's about as funny as the last two films were.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:08 PM on October 30, 2006

A189Nut: Is it so impossible to imagine technological solutions to C02?

Popular Ethics: The short answer is yes, it is impossible.

What are you guys on about? From the 'executive summary' of Stern's Review, which is all I read since I'm a busy executioner: "Policies are required to support the development of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency technologies." It seems to be all about imagining technological solutions, and how they can be encouraged by providing the right economic incentives.

"Stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth." Actually the forecast is for more economic growth over the next several decades if the effort is made, not less.
posted by sfenders at 4:21 PM on October 30, 2006

A189Nut: Well, I think you are all worried about the piles of horseshit filling the streets in 1950

That was back when they drove them "motorless carriages," I reck'n.
posted by katillathehun at 4:30 PM on October 30, 2006

"motorless carriages,"

1890s-1910s - see The Magnificent Ambersons (Novel by Booth Tarkington; Film by Orson Welles)

Copenhagen Consensus

Yes, good point. I guess the idea is that it is specifically about global warming.
posted by stbalbach at 5:19 AM on October 31, 2006