Lord Stern advises Independents on economics of Climate Change
”Ten or 15 years from now, those that produce in dirty ways are likely to face trade barriers.”.
Act on climate or be left behind, says Stern, Sydney Morning Herald, Tom Arup, September 2, 2010, ONE of the world’s leading climate change experts, Sir Nicholas Stern, has warned countries such as Australia will face future trade barriers unless it moves to a low-carbon economy.
In a speech to the National Press Club yesterday, Lord Stern said the world should embrace what he called the ”new industrial revolution” of cleaner technologies and renewable energy.
”Not participating in this new industrial revolution runs two types of risk: you drop behind technologically and you risk, not tomorrow or the next day but 10 or so years from now, finding real difficulty in the trade story,” he said.
”Ten or 15 years from now, those that produce in dirty ways are likely to face trade barriers.”…..Lord Stern is a strong supporter of a carbon price and the author of the 2006 Stern Review, which articulated the economic case for action on climate change.
He is in Australia on a personal trip but has taken time out to meet with major political players, including the independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, who will decide who forms the next government. Lord Stern would not reveal details of his conversation with the two MPs yesterday except to say they were ”very thoughtful, reflective and well-informed people, thinking very seriously about the problems of the future”……
5 Comments »
Leave a comment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Is he the guy that wrote the Stern Report.
What a lot of unadulterated nonsense that is.
If he ever studied economics with reasoning like that believe me he would get a D minus.
Either he is super ignorant or more likely has an agenda to justify his erroneous and alarmist report.
Roger
LikeLike
Lord Nicholas Stern made headline news around the world and became an instant household name when he published his critically acclaimed and long awaited 700 page ground breaking ‘Stern Review’ into the economic impact of climate change.
A former chief economic advisor to the UK government he was also the chief economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. He also played a key role in Europe’s economic development as the chief economist and senior advisor to the Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
In 2009, Lord Stern launched a new UK research centre, designed to undertake world-leading research on the economics and policy implications presented by climate change.
“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.”
LikeLike
Really,
Well his analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions was absolutely hopeless, and I do not believe for a moment that he is genuine in what he says.
Little wonder that he attracted a lot of criticism.
“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response”
Also it is interesting that people such as yourself insist that scientists who “deny” global warming need to be climate scientists, and here you are quoting a dishonest (or else extremely shonky) economist.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Sir Nicholas Stern (Lord Stern)
Second Permanent Secretary to Her Majesty’s Treasury, Director of Policy and Research for the Prime Minister’s Commission for Africa, and Head of the Government Economic Service. Visiting Professor of Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science. Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford.
From 2000-2003, World Bank Chief Economist and Senior Vice President, Development Economics in July 2000. From 1994 until late 1999, Chief Economist and Special Counsellor to the President European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Before 1994 mostly in academic life: including 1986-1993 at the London School of Economics (LSE), Sir John Hicks Chair in Economics. Taught and researched at many places including Oxford and Warwick universities, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, the Indian Statistical Institute in Bangalore and Delhi, and the People’s University of China in Beijing.
Research and publications have focused on economic development and growth, economic theory, tax reform, public policy and the role of the state and economies in transition. First books were on tea in Kenya and the Green Revolution in India (where he lived for 8 months in a village in Northern India in 1974/75). Has written books on crime and the criminal statistics in the UK and a few on public finance and development. His latest book “Growth & Empowerment: Making Development Happen” is published in March.
Served on committees of OXFAM, ODA, and the UN. A Fellow of the British Academy (July 1993), Foreign Honorary Membership of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1998). BA Cambridge (Mathematics), D.Phil Oxford (Economics).
from – THE WORLD BANK
LikeLike
Frankly I do not care anything about any one’s pedigree.
All I consider is the sense of what they write.
In the case of this report, I can point out a number of incorrect facts, examples of the simple process of quoting the IPCC instead of carrying out independent research and serious omissions of the most important facts.
Some examples:
To quote from the summary.
“Vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever could become more widespread if effective control measures are not in place.”
Fact:
Malaria is potentially endemic worldwide. Henry VIII suffered from malaria like symptoms. The disease has been eliminated from wealthier countries by preventative measures. Global warming is not a direct cause.
“Declining crop yields, especially in Africa, could leave hundreds of millions
without the ability to produce or purchase sufficient food”
Alarmist nonsense lifted from IPCC reports.
fact:
Warming climate will cause more evaporation and therfore more rainfall. The Sahara used to be fertile during the Holocene Maximum period.
“Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water
supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the world’s population, predominantly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of China, and the Andes in South America.
Fact:
Once again from the IPCC. That one (Glaciergate) bit the dust pretty badly.
“CO2 emissions per head have been strongly correlated with GDP per head” well he got that right, now let me search for what he says will happen to those people if we make them reduce those emissions?
The Review estimates
“the annual costs of stabilisation at 500-550ppm CO2e to be around 1% of GDP
by 2050 – a level that is significant but manageable.”
Fact: If use of fossil fuels is restricted even by half of the 40% from 1990 levels (57% from present) the cost of fuel will skyrocket maybe 500% or more. This will filter through every cost of living particularly food. This is a major recessive factor and any half economist will recognise this as making the great depression (30% decrease in economic activity) look like tiddlywinks.
Stern does not seem to address how we get the 40% reduction from 1990 levels without a massive disruption in economic activity?
In the summary the impact of emission reductions on the price of food and other essentials is not mentioned.
Instead he predicts some INCREASE in GDP pesumably taking into account both the cost of reductions in emissions and mitigation costs (as we move cities to avoid rising sea levels etc). I do not know which countries he is talking about but it is not yours or mine!
To a trained economist the whole thing does not make sense, rather it is a rehash of the political documents produced by the IPCC.
LikeLike