SIR NICHOLAS STERN: The British economist argues that fixing global warming will only cost the global economy 1 percent of its future growth--a reasonable premium for insurance against potentially catastrophic climate change.
Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The preponderance of scientific evidence makes clear that the earth is warming as a result of human activity. Now policy makers are faced with the question of what to do about it. Scientific American spoke with three leading economic policy thinkers on the topic of how cutting emissions of greenhouse gases would affect the global economy. Links to the edited interviews follow below.
-
Sir Nicholas Stern
Sir Nicholas Stern is an economist and professor of economics and government at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Former chief economist for the World Bank, he prepared the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change for the British government in 2006.
Read the interviewCOURTESY OF NICHOLAS STERN
-
Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark. His latest book is entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.
Read the interviewCOURTESY OF BJORN LOMBORG
-
Gary Yohe
Gary Yohe is an economist at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. and a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared this year's Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. vice president, Al Gore.
Read the interviewCOURTESY OF WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThe world is too big and Mother Nature too powerful for us to correct the changing envoirnment. Face it, the world is run by money and politics, not altruism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sirs: There are two applicable phrases to climate change and Kyoto (Epstein, Forbes 'perverse' incentives, madness and ingenuity, respectively; http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/10/the_wrong_trousers.html) . That the combination of money with life(or anything) can promote a loss of perspective. As a good mental exercise try to envision money as deleted from a mental image of the problem. I can image that it alone causes a lot of the heat changes (and we are proposing 'burning' our pockets in search of a answer).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom my perspective, the problem has two stages; an actual cause, and problematic cures. As obvious from the Kyoto incentive the environmental problems discussed are assumed to be man caused verses naturally occurring. However, the actual mechanism at the outset is not really established-collections of data and projections about the past environment of the earth in this case are very important. If a source were determined and a potential resolution found it might appear certain with a potential to induce sacrifice and focusing of resources to that end-enhanced continuance. In the present state of statistically motivated, perceived orders in perceived chaos with(huge volumes , power, positive economic input involved for industry and employment with a high priority good cause) I do not think our senses work correctly. Common sense economics dictates that we cannot profit from our problems (but to exit in a wild romantic fling with "money"?). This description refers to an immediate perception of contemporary problems( a second stage assumed self imposed). At the primary stage remain many unanswered questions. It is my own intuition that men chronically( and yet by necessity) lean with the winds of nature whether they be actually in a positive or negative direction, when he does not know an absolute course, suggesting that the problem is basically natural in origin, but amplified to a critical state by self action (over extended times causing a loss of perspective). This I believe, is a natural tendency I believe that also is a major factor in the functioning of evolutionary change-"environmental assessment from wind direction" which statistically proceed in a positive direction if past footing is sound, and with a strongly established course that always results in net progress. We should be (cannot be) too punitive upon ourselves with a similar consequence of damage to nature. That our science efforts and associated language itself-understanding can be denigrating-self denigrating is firmly established philosophically for centuries, and yet goals incentives and plans of our communities have not changed(or appear to realize this situation); indicating that our purest reasonings are in serious conflict-most likely from factors beyond understanding or witness. In this described delicate situation(in analogy in the grips of a boa constrictor) we have taken incentive to propose (impose?)blindly basic alterations to the elements. Awareness of false directions and subsequent steps from stage one make the solution a matter of abstinence until the grip subsides. The expression "don't hold your breath" does not always apply. Dwelling and publication of issues can sometimes also sore them. Artificial methods can have only limited value, and it is a fool that thinks to change, control or conquer, when he perceives himself a struggling pawn, a consequential victim, to vast unknowns, that are only birthed living of his own reflections.
In moral philosophy, a doctrine of double effect, in the light of unknown consequences, as third parties (which necessarily each endeavor is to other) not only prescribes a withholding of decisions, but on deeper reflection, if a party does not directly perceive himself as involved (i.e. scientific evidence for indirect effect is excluded from testimony) the party automatically acting on the proposed behalf of others, creates a chain of events, a change, that cannot be in his own self interest if mandatorily existing basic differences, exact uniqueness of the individual is considered. I believe a key word is "inactivity", even with respect to natural population increases that render the problem critical. There are probably many difficulties with our approach to population difficulties; missionaries with poor incentives, lack of respect, chemical and biological means that potentially can have serious side effects, which by the same above argument concerning basic behavior and application most probably defeat efforts in some manner.
If money alone, creates a "madness", we also are not spending it wisely.
Marvin E. Kirsh
http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh
kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
If you are not concerned about a physical system with known positive feedbacks being perturbed by a steady forcing, you probably don't understand much about science. Until we fully understand these feedbacks it is irresponsible in the extreme not to do whatever we can to slow and reduce climate change. The uncertainties in the models all point to things being worse than we thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was at least distressing to read narrow-minded ideas of the rich world's economists who think separately about everything - climate change, illnesses, development, etc. Racist lack of understanding of the latter is screaming when is being read in the environment of a Third World country. The Rich World will never find out about what a threat climate change actually is until it relates the amount of resources left, beginning with water and air, to what the concern of economics should be - survival of the species, not the sophistication of consumption and waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nuances of climate change and its potential solutions – how much, how soon, and how expensive – are completely dwarfed by the issue of our oil supply peaking and becoming unable to satisfy the increasing demand (see “The End of Oil†– October 2001). Many of the same solutions can address the climate change issue and the crisis that will be upon us when oil supplied drops below oil demanded, but the oil availability issue will be here sooner and much more violently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe preponderence of evidence....?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou start with a premise of questionable validity and and then embark upon a discussion of how it is going to effect the world economy.
The effect that global warming will have on the economy will be as significant as the extent to which the people of the world allow the enviornmentalist extremists to panic us with their doomsday scenarios. Given the mentality of the population, the propensity of the news media for exagerating every climate related news story, and the world envy of the United States' prosperity it is inevitable that the United States, the world devil, will be blamed. This allows the world community, in collusion with the criminals in the United Nations to inflict as much damage to the US economy as the citizens of the United States will allow. Elect the Democrats and they will buy into this nonsense and destroy the economy.
There is an assumption here that our climate is ideal and to be maintained in the narrow range of the current interglacial period. Is that at all possible? Can we stop the interglacial from progressing to end the current ice age? Can we reverse and terminate the interglacial, returning to ice sheets over most of North America and Europe? Shouldn't we prepare and have back up plans for any of these scenarios? One thing I know for sure is that our climate will not remain constant. We need better models to evaluate and prepare for both the risks and opportunities that will present themselves in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK let us examine the two false statements that open this ridiculous article: "The science is clear: the climate is changing thanks to human activity." This is one of those, "repeat it enough and they might believe it". There never was a "consensus", except with regards to the "fact" that all matter is made of various mixes of earth, air, fire and water. real science suggests nature is in command when it comes to climate change. Politically motivated pseudoscience is the only thing propping up global warming alarmist scams. Even they know their days are numbered - why do you think they are phasing out "warming" and phasing in "change"? On to the second ridiculous statement: "The question becomes: will preventing further globe-warming pollution ruin the global economy?" Here is an important clue - you cannot stop nature. Climate change is normal, natural, inevitable. Try shouting into a gale and see how that works for you. Global warming, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself, did not start in the 1970 decade. Nor is it continuing today, apparently, despite ever increasing anthropogenic emissions and the fact, THE FACT, that CHINA is the worst polluter, not the USA.
As for some of the posts above:
rlladbury:
They are clearly not "known postive feedbacks" and the alleged petrubation is drastically overstated. Were things as you and the severely flawed climate models suggest true in the real world the Earth would resemble Mercury or Venus today. Fortunately you are not only wrong, you are wrong to the point it is hilarious you cannot see it for yourself. It is clearly you who do not know about science as real science says that climate change is normal, natural, inevitable and so we had better get used to it and stop even thinking about stopping it, slowing it, reducing it. You would have as much luck stopping or slowing an express train by stepping in front of it and raising your hand. The uncertainties in the models suggest we need to fix the models before we waste trillions on what they consistently cannot predict accurately; the lack of understanding of the feedbacks suggest we need to figure them out first. THEN, and only then, should we decide what, if anything, we should do.
If things were really getting worse than we thought, tell me, why is it that since 1998 we have not had a single hotter year? Answer: Global cooling, despite ever increasing fossil fuel burning and CO2 emission.
Oh how Andrew rails against the rich and brings up racism. It is my experience that those who bring up racism are the true racists. What does race have to do with this except that the alleged "people of color" are now adopting this as their curent best excuse to demand that someone else start paying them to continue to avoid their responsibility to start solving their problems themselves. How many people who were not "people of color" have you met in your life? I've met two, no more. Both of them were named Winter - Edgar and Johnny. Everyone else I've ever seen was a "person of color" and the only people who ever brought up racism were those trying to use it to stir it up. Like you, for instance.
The "rich world"? You mean the one you live in where you have a computer to blog on when you are bored and stupid, right? Why do you carp so much about you and those around you? You are welcome to give up your life of ease and go put on animal skins and live in a cave. We will not miss you. Promise.
Beginning with water and air? Are you implying that we are running out of air?
And finally jonhuie talks of "Peak Oil" - a myth that has been around since the first well was drilled. I got your solution to "The End of Oil" right here: ANWR, for starters... plus offshore drilling. Did you not hear about the potential oilfields under the rocky mountains that dwarf anything found to date? The only issue is how do we get to them and believe me, the answer will be in hand soon given the current geopolitical and economic situation.
Seems to me I read an article in SciAm in the late 1990 timeframe that talked about how, by 2000, oil production would peak and be declining and known reserves would be rapidly dwindling. Instead the opposite is true. How about that!
"The End of Oil" indeed! Rather we are working on substitutes even as proven reserves continue to be revised upward as recovery technology improvements march on and new deposits are found - and we have not even begun to explore, much less tap, ANWR yet...
mmorgan and weingibz are making sense. One point - yes we call it "interglacial" but another possibly more accurate description is that we are in the tail end of the last ice age - the Earth needs to warm to reach optimum. That is one of the big lies of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmist (CACCA) crowd. Specifically that some point we already passed is "optimum" and our current temperature is way too warm. All one has to do is read current news reports (snow in Baghdad, killer frosts destroying crops in FL and CA, subfreezing weather all over) to realize that we still could use some more global warming, and how. This claim, that we are already past perfect, is a reflection of the fact that people, some anyway, have difficulty accepting & coping with change. Others face it and go forward despite it.
There probably is no true "perfect" climate. One thing is certain. If you look at all the times in history when mankind thrived and grew rich they were times as warm or warmer than today, 2008. If you look at the times mankind struggled and had massive misery they were times colder than today, 2008. Do the math.
You have to understand, friends, that alarmists all belong to the "because we say so" school of scientific proof. The scientific method is out. Consensus is in. Observation, testing - who needs such archaic methods! Better to decide how things are according to your political and philosophical views, build a model that conforms to your prejudices then reject any real-world observations, measurements and such which contradict you.
No, the fact that the oceans are clearly cooling does not mean that the globe is despite the fact it was proof enough of anthropogenic warming when the oceans were warming about 10 years ago.
Because you say so...
Well here is a news flash - I call shenanigans on you. Pick up your toys and get lost. The proof is there for you to see but if you refuse to see it and instead choose to remain blind you need to just leave it to those of us who have a clue please.
--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 3:39 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
jeezers...how can one put a price on stupidity???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishmmm Iowa as a tropical rain forest....not bad, me likes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this