This set of assumptions
form a fiction borne of a perverse distortion of
reality, self-deceit of the most pernicious kind, the
pinnacle of human hubris. We are expected to believe,
in a world where the population is expected to grow
from its current 6.5 billion to over 8 billion, and
in which everyone is entitled to the lifestyle of the
most profligate of consumers, that the climate can be
stabilised and the natural environment protected.
That in a world of finitude humankind can defy the
laws of physics, continuing to exploit and erode the
world’s non-renewable resources in defiance of the
empirical evidence that confronts us daily.
The notion of continual growth for an increasing number of people in a world of expanding population means that the exploitation of natural resources will accelerate and the pollution of global commons (the air, the rivers and the seas) will exceed their capacity. On all fronts we are blinkered to the accelerating attrition of natural resources. As the Living Planet report 2006 from WWF says “Since the late 1980’s we have been in overshoot. The Ecological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity – as of 2003 by 25%. Effectively, the Earth’s regenerative capacity can no longer keep up with demand – people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources”. The spectre of climate change only adds to the litany of destruction wrought by the global economic system.
Even if we stabilise CO2 at 500ppm, or some other notional level, the effects are already with us and will grow in the coming decades and beyond. The polar ice that is now melting will not simply re-freeze; it will take centuries and possible millennia for any readjustment to occur. The Earth ticks to a geological time-scale, not the ephemeral pulse of human existence. To choose to hear, speak and see no evil will not make it disappear.
Read the report yourself
The Stern report can be downloaded from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm and you can listen to Sir Nicholas Stern introducing his report at the London School of Economics at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/795.
The notion of continual growth for an increasing number of people in a world of expanding population means that the exploitation of natural resources will accelerate and the pollution of global commons (the air, the rivers and the seas) will exceed their capacity. On all fronts we are blinkered to the accelerating attrition of natural resources. As the Living Planet report 2006 from WWF says “Since the late 1980’s we have been in overshoot. The Ecological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity – as of 2003 by 25%. Effectively, the Earth’s regenerative capacity can no longer keep up with demand – people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources”. The spectre of climate change only adds to the litany of destruction wrought by the global economic system.
Even if we stabilise CO2 at 500ppm, or some other notional level, the effects are already with us and will grow in the coming decades and beyond. The polar ice that is now melting will not simply re-freeze; it will take centuries and possible millennia for any readjustment to occur. The Earth ticks to a geological time-scale, not the ephemeral pulse of human existence. To choose to hear, speak and see no evil will not make it disappear.
Read the report yourself
The Stern report can be downloaded from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm and you can listen to Sir Nicholas Stern introducing his report at the London School of Economics at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/795.
The
report by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of
climate change has been hailed as a turning point.
For the first time, the issue of climate change has
been translated into the language of economics, the
language which political leaders and governments will
understand and respond to. Let us leave to one side
for a moment the moral paucity of our political
leadership – that only a hit on GDP is sufficient to
stir them to action.
At the level of science (from the Hadley Centre, DEFRA, and the IPCC), the Stern review says nothing new. The scientific consensus belies the inherent uncertainty in climate modelling and climate predictions, but nonetheless reflects an overwhelming conviction that the climate is changing – and that at least a significant element of this is human driven. I concur with the consensus at this level, but worry over the uncertainty. The EU’s aim was to avoid a rise of global temperature above 2oC (to not exceed global CO2 levels in excess of 450ppm, the pre-industrial level was 280ppm). The view of Stern is that we have already gone beyond the point where stabilisation at 450ppm is possible. His target for stabilisation is 500-550ppm, at which point a 3oC increase becomes a high probability. This would take us into uncharted territory.
What I worry more about, however, is the way in which Stern, and the responses of our political parties, is framing the debate around climate change. The Stern report was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As such, it reflects the taken-for-granted assumptions of its paymasters and, in fairness, of society in general:
At the level of science (from the Hadley Centre, DEFRA, and the IPCC), the Stern review says nothing new. The scientific consensus belies the inherent uncertainty in climate modelling and climate predictions, but nonetheless reflects an overwhelming conviction that the climate is changing – and that at least a significant element of this is human driven. I concur with the consensus at this level, but worry over the uncertainty. The EU’s aim was to avoid a rise of global temperature above 2oC (to not exceed global CO2 levels in excess of 450ppm, the pre-industrial level was 280ppm). The view of Stern is that we have already gone beyond the point where stabilisation at 450ppm is possible. His target for stabilisation is 500-550ppm, at which point a 3oC increase becomes a high probability. This would take us into uncharted territory.
What I worry more about, however, is the way in which Stern, and the responses of our political parties, is framing the debate around climate change. The Stern report was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As such, it reflects the taken-for-granted assumptions of its paymasters and, in fairness, of society in general:
