Faint Nicholas

Nicholas Stern says climate change worse than he thought

Posted at 10:23 AM on 17 Apr 2008

Nicholas Stern, the British economist known for a major report in which he declared that combating climate change would cost less than ignoring it, has announced that he was wrong -- about how bad the problem is. "We badly underestimated the degree of damages and the risks of climate change" in the Oct. 2006 report, he said in a speech Wednesday. "All of the links in the chain are on average worse than we thought a couple of years ago." Thawing permafrost is releasing methane, oceans are acidifying faster than expected, and carbon sinks are becoming less effective, said Stern. He urged nations to come up with a stringent global climate treaty taking food production into account, and reiterated that the world should aim to produce zero-carbon electricity by 2050 (he backs carbon sequestration, nuclear power, and renewable energy). "This is about buying down risk," Stern said. "Starting now, that means it requires at least 1 percent of world GDP. That is small relative to a planetary catastrophe."

sources: The Independent, Reuters, The Telegraph

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Wrong Person

"[H]e backs carbon sequestration, nuclear power, and renewable energy."

The first two are great examples of why economists are NOT the people to whom to look for environmental solutions.

by Wolverine at 11:28 AM on 17 Apr 2008

Actually....

I think that an economist backing sequestration and nuclear power is perfectly done. See, economists have their sense of professional ethics too (even if most of them won't admit it) and if the focus of his report is the Bottom Line, then from a purely academic point of view, nuclear power and carbon capture are perfectly reasonable suggestions.

Now, I imagine that if you asked him as a person and not an economist he might agree that his first two options are not ideal, but that was outside the scope of his paper.

Let's give credit where it's due... This guy went in a different direction than most economists and even double checked his math to make his point. Greenies don't have too many respected economists even remotely in their camp so let's not run this one off by jumping the gun.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

by Matt at 4:46 AM on 18 Apr 2008

I agree with you both

Stern deserves credit for admitting his mistake, something that economists almost never seem to do. Especially as they almost always prove themselves wrong.

But I agree with Wolverine's primary point...economists should not be making the science/policy/action decisions on their flawed cost/benefit analysis.

One day that'll mean geo-engineering because a few economists think it's the "lowest cost" solution.

The world of nature doesn't acknowledge our human view of economics.

by JoshS at 6:50 AM on 18 Apr 2008

Ok

Stern did bring up very important issues about the environment and has raised a hew and cry about the dangers of global warming.I thank him for that,but I can't let myself get on board the nuclear train.We can't safely dispose of nuclear waste and nuclear waste is dangerous at all levels.Throw in corruption in the form of Big Business and politicians and that is a brew that can and will backfire and destroy the land and water as well as alot of people.It is too late to say "I'm sorry" when you let the genie out of the bag.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 9:03 AM on 19 Apr 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?