Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Weekend Reading: More on the Stern Report

By

It was my plan to get out into the garden a bit this weekend. We have had beautiful weather lately here in Brisbane – clear skies, warm days and cool nights. This morning it’s raining – just nicely.

But the official forecast is for a climate crisis.

Indeed, the Stern report with its finding that we risk a global recession because of global warming has dominated media headlines in Australia this last week. According to Sir Nicolas Stern ‘the future’ will be worse than the two world wars and the great depression combined.

But, there were a few lone voices of reason out there, and getting published, and suggesting, that the Stern warning will join Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth in “the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded”.

Following are three published opinion pieces from three friends of mine:

1. Stern Review: The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare
By Bjorn Lomborg
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern’s core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off. Read the full article here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

2. British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
By Bob Carter
Friday, 3 November 2006

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist. Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only. Read the full article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html

3. The Alternatives Are Too Costly
By Alan Moran
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE Stern report and its associated intensified diplomatic push for carbon restraints is already having an effect on policy. In Britain the Opposition Leader has announced that if he wins government he will place a windmill on the roof of Number 10 Downing Street. In anticipation of the report, additional subsidies were announced in Australia for exotic and very expensive renewable energy. Australian total taxes, subsidies and other regulatory measures aimed at combating emissions of carbon dioxide will approach $1 billion a year by 2010 even if no further measures are introduced. Read the full article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/the-alternatives-are-too-costly/2006/11/01/1162339917976.html

But The Age left out the most important part of Alan’s piece, the graph. Here it is:

energy Alan costs with tax.JPG

Reader Interactions

Comments

  4. Pinxi says

    Did Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth spur a host of responses? You ignore the spread and depth of mitigating actions that influenced these issues.

  5. Pinxi says

    Gee you’re all a pessimistic lot, forecasting doom and gloom if we limit GHGs! What Australian economic review that considers the costs and benefits do yuo have to support your pessimism? I keep asking this question and no-one has an answer.

    Will 1% GDP bring us to our knees? If anything can do that it will be our crippling levels of consumption fuelled debt and our lack of economic innovation to get us out of commodity-dependency (the most volatilve and low margin export profile possible). It won’t be spending to address climate change.

    Conservative denialists have a consistent track record of being wrong on estimated costs:

    In a recent post we reviewed how the actual costs of implementing environmental programmes are never as huge as claimed by the denialists, in fact they can spur new markets. Pessimists inflate expected costs (to avoid having to do anything) and underestimate the gains to be had through innovation, technology and new market opportunities. This is the stuff that drives the economy.

    When social security was proposed during teh Great depression, Republican rep J Tabor said it would “prevent business recovery, enslave workers and prevent any possibility of workers providing work for people”. Conversely all went fine and social security is singularly credited for lowering poverty among the elderly.

    If you want to understand more of your ilks’ inaccurate pessimistic and doomsdaying predictions that don’t come true, I refer you to A O Hirschman, “The Rhetoric of Reaction”.

  7. rog says

    Pinxi

    the stuff that drives the economy is profit.

    All the rest is just bwhite noise inside your head.

    PS shouldnt you be out the walking against warming or did the cool change rain on your parade.

  8. Pinxi says

    rog it’s innovation and savings and investment. Profit is the income by the owners of capital.

    if every person who participated in a march stayed at home and wrote a letter to their pollies instead then we might see some real change. besides which, I can’t walk, I’m a software programme

  9. rog says

    Rubbish, its profits that *drive* the economy, investment is made from savings derived from profits.

    You been reading lefty/marxist propaganda again?

    Why do you think that letter writing will make a change? why not save some money instead of frittering it away, buy some shares in an established company with good earnings and become an *owner of capital* instead of whingeing how the world isnt nice to you.

  10. chrisl says

    I love it when they say “only 1% of GDP” as if it a trivial amount. But when interest rates go up by a quarter of a per cent al hell breaks loose and they round up the horses to organise a lynch mob.
    And higher petrol prices are a carbon tax and that doesn’t meet with overwhelming approval eaither.

  11. Luke says

    Lomborg, Carter, Moran – sigh – why would you even bother listening given the track record.

    And rabid commentary – look at em’ go ! But but but but but .. ..

    Hey if economists can’t comment neither can ageing geologists.

    You realise it’s imperative for Australia to sign the Kyoto protocol – the drought will never break if you don’t. And we need to double the price of petrol and coal – it’s OK Roget – I’ve got shares !!

  14. Pinxi says

    did anyone say 1% of GDP was trivial chris? Point was that it won’t even come near breaking us like the sceptics like to pessimistically claim.

    The post above exaggerates the report’s position on economic impact of GW. The report says it could reach 20% but more likely, given an expected 5% impact on GDP, 1% is worthwhile spend.

    No-one says it should be taken lightly.
    Nor has anyone substantiated a position that it would undermine our economy or quality of life. The obesity and diabetes epidemic is more likely to do that.

    Even conservative economist Henry Thornton said it’s a no-brainer clear decison on which action should be taken: 1% v’s 5%

    The 1st extinction to be directly attributable to GW is the breed of the Denialists. When you’ve got no strong point to make you resort to wild and irrelevant accusations. Not engaging yr nasty, inaccurate nonsense rog.

  16. Luke says

    I have a compelling explanation of climate change for ABC and Rog. The SA message especially useful.



  18. Paul Williams says

    Yesterdays walk against warming really worked! It’s freezing here this morning. Goes to show what good things can happen when people care enough to take action.

  19. Pinxi says

    Still no rationale for all the doomsdaying on the national economic impact of climate action. Still no justification for supporting AP6 but not Kyoto. Is it all based on fear, pessimism and beliefs? I mentioned that a certain crowd was building up a rapture frenzy. It made it into the Age:

    “THE Rapture Index has been high this week… ..
    “All the indicators point to the imminent return of our Lord and the rapture of the faithful, wherein we will be taken up to be with Him in the sky.

    If you don’t believe me, you can check it out for yourself at raptureready.com.”

    “… Triumphant liberalism is one sign that we are living in the last days.”

    “Born-again Bible-believing Christians have an insight into things like resource depletion and climate change not vouchsafed to the un-saved. The Bible says that there will be earthquake, famine, plague, drought and pestilence at the end of time, so who is surprised?

    Think of this. All those Chicken Littles squawking about running out of oil and stuffing up the atmosphere are just not facing facts. When God made the earth 6000 years ago, He knew exactly how long it had to last. He knows everything. So He put just enough oil and coal in the ground and provided precisely the volume of clean air that we needed to see us out before the Rapture and Armageddon.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/11/04/1162340093030.html?from=top5
    Looking for a new cause Luke?

  22. Pinxi says

    In the Telegraph story (Jen’s link), Monckton criticises the models.

    “… Monckton (sorry, 3rd viscount of Benchley) was the inventor of the “eternity puzzle”, a post-Rubik’s toy that he was so confident would take between three and 130 billion years to solve that he offered £1 million to the first person to do so.

    It took seven months, and he lost his ancestral home. Also irrelevant to point out that he was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher during the full flush of monetarism. ”

    Guy Rundle in Crikey

  23. Sid Reynolds says

    So Sir Nick Stern joins Sir David King and Mother Shipton in the Club of Great False Prophets!
    As a scientist friend commented on the AGW issue, ‘No one knows. Anyone who claims they ‘know’ is either a time traveler from the future, an ideologue, or ignorant.’
    By the way, a scientific report has Mars suffering from ‘global warming’, with the ice caps melting. Is that our fault too? Or is it just our little old Sun?…In both cases???

  24. Luke says

    Pinx – I think old Monkie is a shonky wonky. All the usual try-ons.

    I was wondering when we’d get to the old Mars and global warming scam. Sigh.

    “There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth..”

    http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en-GB&q=mars+global+warming+realclimate

    Sid nobody knows what will happen if your drive your car down the freeway at 160 km/hr either – maybe nothing.

  25. David McMullen says

    In the US, energy production is between 6 and 7 per cent of GDP. I suspect that would be fairly typical given that the energy intensity of the US economy is only slightly higher than the OECD and world averages.

    So if Stern claims that the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 per cent will be less than 1 per cent of GDP, he is in fact claiming that energy costs will not increase by any more than 1/6 to 1/7 (i.e., 14 to 16 per cent). If, as I imagine, the cost disparity is far greater than that to start with, it will have to become a lot more favorable at some point in the future to compensate.

  26. neville kettle says

    Several personal observations about Global Fooling.

    1/ Tony Blair is in deep poo in GB. He has to try and regain the 3rd way if he is to leave office as a hero. Hence the shonky terms of reference for Stern.

    2/ALL of the EU countries & GB are in deep financial POO as they grapple with an ageing population that expects their promised pension entitlements to be paid. The only way is for increased taxation. (OH look carbon taxes are on the agenda. Shucks folks)

    3/The stupidity of people to believe the Communists of 20 years ago threw their hammers & sickles into the fields and became good Capitalists is indicated in their stupidity in relation to believing in CO2 induced Global Fooling. ALL Green parties are far left-wing.
    When Bernie Taft was interviewed after winding up the ACP he said they would not go away instead they would.
    move into the Public Service
    move into the Unions.
    move into the Environmental movement.

    4/There is something wrong with the way in which the “media” have reported the evolving debate. Trouble is there isn’t a debate. They love disasters. It makes more money. This is the same media that stabs our troops in the back by giving support to those who are trying to kill them.

    5/ As far as I know not ONE EU/Kyoto signatory nation has come close to meeting the targets set.

    Where is the Government in all this?? Having a bet each way. Its not only Kim Beasley who lacks vision & ticker.