The Stern Report

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The Stern Review [Large PDF] onto the economic implications of climate change. The headline figures are pretty alarming spend 1% of GDP now or face a depression that would wipe 20% off of world GDP. It's getting a lot of coverage over here and climate change is a big issue here now with the major parties vying with each other to be the most green (more hot air than action as of yet). The usual suspects are lining up to rubbish it (Cato Institute, the US ambassador does not dispute the problem but disputes the solution)

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935201,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm

How is this playing outside the UK, is it playing at all?

Ed (dali), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:06 (nineteen years ago)

"It's those damned liberals again!" -- the US right.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:09 (nineteen years ago)

front page of the SF Chronicle, but no surprise there.

CA should just secede from the rest of the country anyway.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/5522/b0006jmlfm01ss500sclzzzig4.jpg

manute lol (sanskrit), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

had to do so much work on this today. it is beyond my capacity to think about it outside work.

however george monbiot's climate change article in the observer sports monthly was insane. the man needs to be locked in a cupboard and is mouth duct-taped shut.

really good tactics by the climate change lobby (such as it is) (ie this isn't so much tactics as luck) to pump up the issue with the public to the level it's now at - ie basically unignorable - and then turn around and sock it to business with the economic arguments.

The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

yes i would be interested to see how this is playing in the rest of the world. are there any scientifically credible global warming sceptics left?

The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't find it insane. Seem fairly reasonable to me.

Ed (dali), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

"everyone stay at home and watch the olympics on tv and make the athletes perform in empty stadia" is not an argument which is going to convince anyone.

The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:17 (nineteen years ago)

"are there any scientifically credible global warming sceptics left?"

Not really, but there are plenty of politically powerful and economically influential ones which don't seem to be going anywhere.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

as well as most global corporations, if they count.

gwynywdd dwnyt fyrwr byychydd gww (donut), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

just came across this:

fuckin "red states"

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:34 (nineteen years ago)

okay that didn't work

http://energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-999-2006-022/CEC-999-2006-022.PDF

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:35 (nineteen years ago)

argh I was trying to pull out slide 11, to no avail.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 October 2006 23:35 (nineteen years ago)

Woah. How is it that Cali uses almost as much power as the whole rest of the country!

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 03:05 (nineteen years ago)

as well as most global corporations, if they count

Well, I dunno bout that. ExxonMobil of course is a big exception to this, but there was a study published recently (by the Pew Charitable Trust, maybe?) that showed quite a lot of big American companies are already voluntarily taking steps towards reducing emissions, partly because it's good PR, but also 'cause they figure that non-voluntary reductions are going to be legislated sooner or later, so they might as well start doing it NOW.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 07:17 (nineteen years ago)

Most corporations have, at the very least, been building climate change into their risk assesments for the last five years or so, mainly because insurance companies have been looking at this for longer and have been upping premiums for disaster related insurance for a while now. SO a lot of businesses are now tentatively taking steps for PR reasons and out of pure self interest but no company is going to go the whole hog, at great cost if their competitors aren't and this is where government needs to get out the big stick.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 07:39 (nineteen years ago)

Is anyone else getting a sense that things might actually happen?

There seems to be a real urgency in the debate and prominent presence in the public sphere like never before; maybe the tide is starting to turn, especially when previous denialists start to alter their views. But yeah, the whole economic apocalypse thing is probably what's going to be the real catalyst.

salexandra (salexander), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

Action Plan

Add to that, implement a decent international rail service from the UK to tempt people out of planes.

Yes, I think finally the ball is rolling, how fast we accelerate is key here. There seems to be a consensus in the UK body politic that something must be done, this is not the same as making hard political choices and actually doing something but it is a start (ten years too late at least but it is still a start)

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 09:48 (nineteen years ago)

And what's more we shouldn't be swayed by the arguments that even if the UK stopped producing CO2 tomorrow china's growth in CO2 would swallow up that output within two years. A G8 industrial nation has to lead by example and drag as many of the rest along with them.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 09:51 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not very well educated on this topic apart from broad knowledge, but does Al Gore have much credibility? Because he claims even if one of the big western industrial nations joins Kyoto, it will apply pressure on China and India to also join the international community.

salexandra (salexander), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 09:54 (nineteen years ago)

well certainly that strategy has been a great success in winning of the usa, so china should be a cinch.

benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 09:56 (nineteen years ago)

am interested that monbiot favours coaches -- why are these better than rail? rail done right would be super.

benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

Gore has a lot of credibility on this subject. NB the only big industrial nation not to join kyoto is the US. China and India were left out of Kyoto because they were developing nations. It was always envisaged that developing nations would join some kind of agreement in 2012 when the Kyoto agreement expires, however the US congress fucked that one up by not ratifying the far to modest provisions of the Kyoto accords when Clinton signed it.

China and india, to a great extent, know that they can grow in the same way as the west grew over the last two centuries, this is partly because they know that there just isn't the cheap fossil energy available any more. There is no way that china or india, with their populations could even fit a car for every family even if they wanted to. China especially is using the best available technology for fossil fuel electricity generation, but the huge growth rate is growing emissions, and china will keep growing as cheaply as possible. So pressure needs to be put on them from outside with some big carrots as well. What might sell it to them is some technology transfer so that China can become a world leader in producing wind turbines or photovoltaic cells.

India I'm less sure about in terms of how this plays but India will get hit earlier and harder by the effects of climate change as weather in the tropics becomes more severe.

Monbiot favours coaches because they produce less carbon per passenger kilometre and the infrastructure is already in place to support them (the motorways) The railways are already at capacity but if you take private cars off the motorways there is space for coaches. Producing the concrete required to build a new high speed railway would produce a lot of CO2 and it would take 10 years to build one and thus gain any significant capacity improvements son the railways.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

There seems to be a consensus in the UK body politic that something must be done

You mean they have committees, reports, tough words and lots of hand wringing, while in the meantime we have more road congestion and cheapo airline snobs than practically anywhere on earth? I can really see Blair, Brown or Cameron taking tuff measures to change people's behaviour. I can see Blair strutting around the world on some pseudo-messianic mission telling everyone else to change. While he continues to concrete over Britian with airports and retail parks.

David V (grammy), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

the government would enshrine into law Britain's target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050

aka "eventually get around to doing something"

i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

john howard, so clearly in the pocket of the mining industry it's a wonder he can breathe, brings these pearlers:

"I am not prepared to lead Australia into an agreement that is going to betray the interests of the working men and women of this country and destroy the natural advantage that providence gave us."

"As you clean up coal, you make it dearer, and as you make coal dearer, you make nuclear power economically more feasible."

lol, we are fucked.

H2-H4 (H2-H4), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

"Woah. How is it that Cali uses almost as much power as the whole rest of the country!"

the graph on slide 11 is per capita usage.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

(meaning that CA per capita use way LESS energy than the rest of the country, particularly "red" states)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

Today has been depressing, waste everywhere, I think I shall move to scotland, start planting vines and just wait.

Let's get rid of, right now:

Non returnable bottles
Shop doors that don't close
Open fridges
Airfreighted food (sorry africa its this or you won't be able to grown anything in 30 years time)

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

there's another great graph in that report showing how China's simply adhering to existing standards for a/c and refrigeration would save the energy equivalent to the production capacity of the 3 Gorges hydro-dam project.

open refrigerators indeed.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

offices and supermarkets leaving their lights on all night while they're empty GNASH GNASH

emsk ( emsk), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

It's all right, the evil backlash has already begun. Prof dude talking about how no arctic ice will mean we can drill there for oil! hurrah!

pa
CLIMATE change could usher in a golden age for the Arctic as melting ice opens up new sea routes and access to natural resources, experts predict.
But safeguards will be needed to ensure one of the world’s last pristine environments is not over-exploited and ruined, they warn.
Tapping huge Arctic reserves of oil and gas could also add more carbon to the atmosphere at a time when urgent action is needed to reduce the effects of greenhouse gases.

stet (stet), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

Also people not switching off their PCs, walking past office windows with row upon row of screens still with the windows screen saver running.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

> Also people not switching off their PCs, walking past office windows with row upon row of screens still with the windows screen saver running.

see also: behind the newsreaders at the BBC even whilst reading out reports about climate change and how we should all switch things off rather than leaving them on standby.

Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 09:25 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.