Just published by Reuters, the following update from Lord Stern, the author of the now famous 2006 Stern Report. I am reproducing the Reuters interview in its entirety, as this is critical information in my opinion:
Climate change expert Nicholas Stern says he under-estimated the threat from global warming in a major report 18 months ago when he compared the economic risk to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Latest climate science showed global emissions of planet-heating gases were rising faster and upsetting the climate more than previously thought, Stern said in a Reuters interview on Wednesday.
For example, evidence was growing that the planet’s oceans — an important “sink” — were increasingly saturated and couldn’t absorb as much as previously of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), he said.
“Emissions are growing much faster than we’d thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we’d thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates, and the speed of climate change seems to be faster,” he told Reuters at a conference in London.
Stern said that increasing commitments from some countries such as the European Union to curb greenhouse gases now needed to be translated into action. Policymakers, businesses and environmental pressure groups frequently cite the Stern Review as a blueprint for urgent climate action.
The report predicted that, on current trends, average global temperatures will rise by 2-3 degrees centigrade in the next 50 years or so and could reduce global consumption per head by up to 20 percent, with the poorest nations feeling the most pain.
Some academics said he had over-played the costs of potential future damage from global warming at up to twenty times the cost of fighting the problem now, such as by replacing fossil fuels with more costly renewable power.
Stern said on Wednesday that increasing evidence of the threat from climate change had vindicated his report, published in October 2006.
“People who said I was scaremongering were profoundly wrong,” he told the climate change conference organized by industry information provider IHS.
A U.N. panel of scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), writes regular summaries on climate science and last year shared the Nobel Peace prize with former U.S. vice president Al Gore for raising awareness.
Its latest report in 2007 had not taken detailed account of some dangerous threats, including the falling ability of the world’s oceans to absorb CO2, because scientists had to be cautious and that evidence was just emerging, the former World Bank chief economist added.
“The IPCC has done a tremendous job but things are moving on,” he told Reuters.
“The IPCC’s (cautious) approach to this is entirely understandable and sensible, but if you’re looking ahead and asking about the risk then you do have to go beyond.”
Stern said that to minimize the risks of dangerous climate change global greenhouse gas emissions should halve by mid-century. He said the United States should cut its emissions by up to 90 percent by then.
Will world leaders listen, and take action, quick?
Just wonderful. Great news for a Friday?!
Time to think about how to “encourage” relevant leaders and companies to take wise action, energetically.
They probably won’t, because so called “world leaders” are not leaders, but politicians. They’ll always need to balance interests. Most politicians don’t look that far ahead anyway.
Politicians will move with the electorate. It’s the general opinion that we should be working on. Of course, public opinion can be heavily influenced by strong leadership, but I don’t think that this would come from politicians. We need a new Martin Luther King for that.
We need to get someone in office who’ll support a 90-95% cut in emissions.
And we need to quit dwadling about it and get our butts in gear.
Thanks all, for sharing my frustrations. We want to act, and take charge, and move things. Let us say that is one tiny effort in the midst of huge collective forces, over which we have absolutely no control. However as Nadine reminded us the other day, with her image of ‘The Lion and the Rat’, let us now underestimate the power of the small . . . Persistence can conquer lots!
Great comments. Yes, persistence can accomplish a lot.
I don’t know if anyone noticed the obit, but the scientist who pointed out “the butterfly effect” and, as The New York Times said, the “father of chaos theory”, died this past week. His name was Edward N. Lorenz, of MIT. The obituary (in Thursday’s New York Times) is quite interesting. Dr. Lorenz was 90.
In any case, the connection is this: We need LOTS of butterflies flapping wings to motivate the mammoth mainstream on this one. It wouldn’t hurt to have a few King Kongs as well!
Love that image Jeff. I am no King Kong, but butterfly, yes . . .
Go, butterflies, go!
Jeff, it’s interesting you brought up the butterfly effect. It’s no accident I’m posting here, as opposed to anywhere else on the web.
Does anyone here know how Linux came about?
My loose impression is that it (Linux) grew from the ground up, but I’m not at all sure? Maybe it started top-down but then was offered for free, at which time it spread from the ground up? In any case, the real answer to your question is “no”.
The first public part of the history of linux is this usenet posting. Pretty amazing, isn’t it?
He didn’t have a clue it would become this big.
Great story, Meryn! I loved the irony of the email.
If we all just do our part . . .
Firstly, Nicholas Stern is not a “climate change expert”, he is, or was, a civil servant – an economist employed by the British government’s Treasury Department (so, completely unbiassed of course)…
Secondly, the following was quoted in “The Investigation” on BBC Radio 4 concerning the Stern Report by Richard Toi, who is professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world’s leading environmental economists – cited by Stern some 63 times; but it would appear that Toi does not agree with the report…
“If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail.
“There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make,”
To be polite, Stern’s work is deeply flawed. To be less polite, it is a load of rubbish written to justify the agendas of the politicians who were his employers.
I’ve found another, longer, but no less ascerbic comment re Stern…
We conclude that the Stern Review is biased and alarmist in its reading of the science. These and other related problems arise because the Review has relied for advice almost exclusively on a small number ofpeople and organizations that have a long history of unbalanced alarmism on the global warming issue. Most of the research cited by the Review does not, on inspection, make a convincing case that greenhouse warming constitutes a major threat that justifies an immediate and radical policy response. Contrary research is consistently ignored, as are basic observational facts showing that alarm is unwarranted. The Review fails to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will reinforce ill-informed alarm about climate change among the general public, the bureaucracy and the body politic. HM Government will need to look elsewhere for a balanced, impartial and authoritative review of the current climate change debate.—Robert M. Carter et al., World Economics, October-December 2006