Listen to Stern

Written By: Reverend Blair
Date: 2006-11-01 09:00:00
<a href="/article/201059594-listen-to-stern">Article Link</a>

 <a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm">Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change</a> has been widely reported in the media as being a doomsday report. Things are bad, but we didn’t really know how bad until a noted economist told us. At least that’s the impression you’d get if you listened to the mainstream media. Of course that same media is still trotting out Ross McKitrick for “balance” without acknowledging his connections to oil-company-funded think tanks, the massive holes that have been poked in his attempts to debunk climate science, or his apparent attempts to manipulate the peer review process. McKitrick isn’t the only fossil fuel industry shill talking to the media. The usual suspects are beginning to make the rounds in an attempt to refute Stern’s assertion that climate change is an economic as well as an environmental disaster, and the partisan conservative bloggers are in high gear. Some are still denying global warming, others are claiming that Kyoto should be scrapped and others are questioning Sir Nicholas Stern’s economic credentials and political connections. Some, including Conservative partisans in Canada, are claiming that it is proof that the Kyoto Accord is a failure and Prime Minister Harper is right not to attempt to meet its goals. That Stern himself explicitly encouraged Canada to try to meet its Kyoto targets in an interview with CBC News World seems to have escaped them. Of course Rona Ambrose, presumably under the direction of her micro-managing boss, is claiming that this report is proof that the Conservative Green Plan should pass through Parliament without question. Apparently Ms. Ambrose forgot to read the parts about action needing to start immediately and the reductions in emissions needing to be not only larger than her weak plan, but based on 1990 emissions. That’s not to mention the overall urgent tone of the report and its acknowledgment that pitting the environment against the economy is a fool’s game. The one thing that nobody seems to want to talk about is that there is nothing new in Stern’s report. For years environmentalists have been making the argument that if we don’t do something about global warming and other ecological disasters because of short-term economic concerns, we won’t have an economy in the long term. Stern may have quantified it in economic terms, but his basic premise isn’t new. The global economy is, in the very end, based on people and the access to the natural resources that support them. We may have distorted that relationship, especially since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century and the advent of the oil economy after World War One, but in the end we depend on the earth for our food, water, air and shelter and have throughout our evolution. Destroying or greatly altering the systems that created the environment in which we evolved comes with a cost and the greater the alterations, the greater that cost is. That we needed an economist to point that out to us reveals more about human character, or lack thereof, than it does about climate change. That our political and business leaders continue to promote varying versions of business as usual reveals a lack of leadership that supports those who suggest our species should have stayed in the trees. Those revelations may explain why Stern’s report is being portrayed as a doomsday report. That portrayal is misleading though. This is a man who speaks the same language as Stephen Harper, George Bush, John Howard, and other leaders who have a record of putting corporate profits ahead of the well-being of human beings. The rush by the professional climate change naysayers to debunk, discredit, and lash out at Sir Nicholas Stern is a sign that the facts are closing in on them, not that Stern is wrong. That such a report has come from such a reputable source not only weakens the argument for putting economics at odds with the environment, but gives voice to those who have been largely ignored in the debate about what to do about climate change. This has been evident in Canada since the release of the report, with opposition parties using it to press their own climate change programs. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton are playing a game of political one-upmanship that may actually yield results for a change. Although those talks seem to be breaking down. The political discourse that the Stern report has elicited shows that it should not be perceived as a doomsday report. While the news isn’t good, it opens the door for governments to finally move to do something to address climate change. The scientific debate was, for intents and purposes, finished a decade ago, despite the worst attempts of the global warming deniers and other purveyors of junk science. The only argument left to those who would prefer to do nothing was the economic one...that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would bankrupt us. While Stern’s thorough debunking of that argument is not new, having previously been put forth by everybody from David Suzuki to Al Gore, it does put pressure on governments to act. The environmentalists and political left now have the support of somebody who the moneyed establishment and corporate robber barons cannot simply write off, try as they might. To ignore this report, as the Bush government in the US seems poised to do and the Harper government seems to be seeking to do, is to risk great political cost not only with the voters at home, but with foreign governments. The implications of continuing to do nothing or to act so slowly as to achieve nothing have now been quantified and it threatens the economic life of the entire planet. Some see poor environmental stewardship as a means to gain a competitive advantage in business and trade. Nations that have been striving to reduce their emissions consider such advantages unfair and have expressed interest in launching trade suits against countries that refuse to reduce emissions. Stern gives weight to this argument in his review, saying, “Greenhouse gases are, in economic terms, an externality. Those who produce greenhouse gas emissions are bringing about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and on future generations, but they do not face the full consequences of their actions themselves.” The report goes on to suggest that the full cost of greenhouse gas emissions should be reflected in the price of goods and services. “Three elements of policy for mitigation are essential: a carbon price, technology policy and the removal of barriers to international change. Leaving out any one of these elements will significantly increase the costs of action,” the report says. That flies in the face of what has been happening with trade around the world, where a desperate race to the bottom has been taking place for decades and multinational corporations have moved to countries with low environmental and labour standards as a way to increase profits, while the governments of wealthy nations such as the United States and Canada have cut money for research and development for clean energy and removed educational programs aimed at teaching people how to conserve energy. Stern is very clear in his pronouncements. We need to reduce emissions drastically and we need to begin now. Governments that have not met their Kyoto goals need to do better. We need an international agreement that goes well beyond Kyoto that is binding and has real penalties for not adhering to it. We need to plan for the disasters that we’ve already set in motion. We need to understand that global warming will cause an economic calamity. We need to comprehend that it is also a matter of security as the social upheaval that global warming causes will most likely lead to wars. Either we spend some money to protect the environment and address the security and social issues, or we won’t have an economy and will face social mayhem and resource wars as people suffer the effects of our non-action. Not only are those pronouncements clear, but they are very public and are echoing throughout the world in a way that we have not seen before. Sir Nicholas is not the first to have pointed these things out to the world, but he is the loudest to date. In a political culture where the loudest is the most heeded, that makes Sir Nicholas the most effective. Perhaps Stephen Harper has gotten the message, perhaps not. If he hopes to be politically relevant in six months, he’d better turn on his receiver and listen to what Stern and others are saying, though. The Canadian people aren’t going to waste their time saying it all again. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 1, 2006]

Hmmm, a "Stern" warning indeed! *groan* I know, I just couldn't resist.

Let me begin with a song...

Tum-tum-tee-tum-tum
Tum-tee-tum-tum-tum

If you don't recognize the melody (there wasn't one) it's from the movie "Eric the Viking" starring Terry Gilliam (Monte Python) and I think Eric Idle was in it too (also Monte Python).
The legend was that if ever the "horn resounding" were blown and there were even a drop of blood spilled, this island would sink into the ocean.
In this scene, Terry Gilliam, the leader, was conducting the people of the island who were singing the tum tum song when the horn resounding was blown and a drop of blood spilled. As the water rose up, Terry Gilliam's eyes grew bigger and bigger and the people asked what to do. When the water reached his hips, the leader shouted "Don't worry, this isn't happening"!

Nowadays Steven Harpers face replaces Terry Gilliams in my memory and the scene isn't so funny anymore.

This submission by the Rev. reminded me also of something I read a few years back, that the fall of every civilization in history has coincided with environmental degradation.
I think we are faced with challenges but we also have an opportunity to be the first to buck the trend. The Kyoto nay sayers are always going on about the economy and now we have one of their very own economists telling us that in fact it will hurt our economy to NOT do anything. So maybe now they'll see the opportunity to renew our economy environmentally. I have been saying for years that our economy can be renewed using environmental challenges as the impetus. I see no reason that Canada cannot be at the forefront of green technology and lead the world to it's very own salvation! Presently, oil is the root of all the earths most pressing problems.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Too bad it's going to take economists to come out on the side of our environment before our elected useless take any notice. Where have all our values gone?

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

This is what I like about the Green Party. Their rebuttal to the accusation of being a one issue party? It's not true because many issues are related to the environment! It's very true... Healthcare is an obvious one and now even an economist admits that the economy is too.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

The saddest part is that, even if everything possible were done immediately, it would still be some decades before the situation even started to turn around (assuming of course that it IS reversible).

It took a long time to get here, and sadly the road back is just as long.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Wraun said, "I read a few years back, that the fall of every civilization in history has coincided with environmental degradation."

There's a book called "A Short History of Progess" by Ronald Wright. It was actually the Massey Lectures a few years ago. He goes through several examples of environmental destruction and the fall of civilzations. That may be what you're thinking of. If not, I recommend it...great book.

Actually I think the road back is longer. Back in the '80s we were warned that it would take "centuries" for the ozone layer to repair itself. That is "centuries" after the assault stops. But what did anyone know in the '80s? They were only guessing. Fear mongering hippy tree huggers. Yup uhuh.
Thanks for the book recommedation Rev, I'll be sure to look for it.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

We started this assault on the atmosphere with the Industrial Revolution, and that was approximately 200 years ago.

History agrees with the science.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Yes but 200 or even 100 hundred years ago we weren't polluting the atmosphere and simultaneously ripping out the lungs of the planet at the rate we have been in last 50 years. The problem is, is that our pollution has grown exponentially and each negative effect we have, affects the other effects and the problems are compounded.
And look at global warming, it doesn't even need to interact with other effects, it compounds itself. e.g. more ice lost on the polar icecaps = more exposed ocean surface = less heat deflected by white ice and more heat absorbed into the ocean = warmer ocean = less ice.
There is another thread that seems to have disappeared now about the imminent collapse of the US dollar that I see as being directly related to this topic. If this story and its predictions are correct, then it is actually a good thing. The last couple of lines in that article say that America's planned conquest of Caspian basin oil is its way of "holding a gun" to the heads of foreign governments in order to keep oil prices tied to the US dollar. While that may be true, the result of that would likely be that foreign powers who wish to be free of American capitalism would ultimately seek a new form of energy.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Last week Monbiot's new book, Heat, showed up in my mailbox and I have been engrossed ever since. I have been going over his statistics and projections and ideas for how we can stay within the boundaries of GHG emissions and avoid the kick-in of very nasty positive feedback mechanisms that will remove things from human control such that "climate change will begat climate change", in George's own words.

The most uplifting new idea that he presented was taking the U.K. Met Office's projections of the 'safe' amount of global GHG emissions for the year 2030 (a widely recognized pivotal year as that is the estimated date when the 'tipping point' has been tipped if we go on like we are now)as the amount that must be fairly divided among the world's population to grant everyone on the planet an equal share of GHG emission allotment. At first the plan was uplifting, but not for long, because as I crunched the numbers according to his template I was shocked at the results for a typical Canadian citizen.
The example I first calculated was our individual GHG emission allowance for our cars/trucks/SUVs/minivans. Without going through the entire calculation here, the bottom line is there is enough for either: 1) 100,000 SUVs to drive 12,000 miles per year, or 2) 10,000,000 vehicles to drive 120 miles each per year. This fit in with the overall calculation of each individual Canadian's GHG emissions allotment of 0.33 tonnes per year, which would be a 98.7% reduction of our current emissions which clock in at 19.1 tonnes per Canadian per year.
Well, I am still shocked by the implications. No Canadian government will ever accept such an allotment, even though, as George points out, equitable rationing is the only fair way to proceed.
The whole exercise tells me that resource wars, depleted uranium contamination, cruel exploitation of half of the world's population, etc. is only a warmup for wiping out most of the world's population so that the remainder can have enough GHG emissions to live a "decent" lifestyle. Again, if we take the maximum allowable emissions at 2.7 b tonnes in 2030 according to the Met Office and calculate again, only about 200,000,000 people on earth can have an emission allowance of 13.5 tonnes per capita, which is sufficient (perhaps) for a lifestyle between that of Canada and France (which has a very low GHG emission rate of less that 7 tonnes now). There is zip for everyone else - nada, nil.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Gaian pioneer James Lovelock suggested this summer that we will have an 8 to 10 degree temperature increase within 10 to 20 years and that only about 200,000,000 people will be able to survive, and that will be in the Arctic. If we had individual allocations of 3.0 tonnes per person (as in an undeveloped country) we could support a global population of only 900,000,000 people.
Perhaps this puts a new spin on the 'concentration camps' being built in North America, the police states that are being fortified under the guise of the War on Terror, the usurpation of civil liberties everywhere.
The governments of the world are working for the survival of the policy-making elites who have "led" us into this mess, and that could mean the elimination of most of the people on the planet.
I have been fond of saying that my activism is nothing but a struggle for the planet and all of its people. Today I feel that those people have been consigned to death row.

---
Michael

Heat is an excellent book, MJ. I don't find it as dark as so many have said it is because Monbiot actually looks for solutions and isn't afraid to point out the stupid ones.

It's important to keep in mind that his solutions aren't necessarily applicable all over the board though. The book is written for a British audience and concentrates on the British situation.

In the case of the SUVs, there are several things we can do. The first is mass transit, the second more efficient cars, the third is cars that run on something besides fossil fuels, and the fourth is cutting back in other areas so we can still drive a fair bit and be within our carbon targets. I've put them in that order because I believe there will always be at least some carbon emissions related to driving.

I think the hardest thing to address in Canada is likely heating and cooling our houses and businesses. It shouldn't be...we have the technology to be almost emission-free in this area if we want to be...but if you talk to builders, they don't want any real code changes and most haven't adapted to simple things like proper vapour barriers yet, even though the code for those has been there for years. You still hear people say things like, "A house has to breathe," too. That's true, but the way we build houses today is more like sucking air through a gaping chest wound than breathing.

<blockquote> and most haven't adapted to simple things like proper vapour barriers yet </blockquote> Being in construction, I can testify to that. It's one thing to pass laws, and quite another to enforce them -- which is why (in housing at least) I am an advocate of factory constructed custom, modular units that are assembled on site. Japanese and other "foreign" autos are constructed mostly by robots (about 85%), which helps explain their superiority to the (former) Big Three. Why not adapt this technology to that other, major purchase a citizen makes in her/his life............--- "Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

There is hope! It looks like geothermal is catching on. There is certainly no reason that new home construction especially on the west coast should not be heading in this direction. It's not quite as feasable to do a retrofit or even a new construction install in the northern climates but if crude/propane & NG continue through the roof, it won't be all that long before it is. Kind of ironic isn't it... Oilman Bush shooting himself in the foot while inadvertantly saving the planet. <a href="http://www.gogeothermal.ca/">GSHP site</a>--- Everybody got to deviate from the norm

Even the houses that they build, then move as a unit are consructed better than most houses stick-built on site. That's got a lot to do with the pay structures for contractors encouraging shortcuts.

In retrofits, there's this bizarre resistance to opening up walls to insulate them properly too. If people knew how much fun it was to destroy a wall with a wrecking bar, that might change, but most have been convinced that hanging drywall is rocket science. Same with installing windows and doors...it isn't that hard and doesn't take long to do properly, but there is this huge resistance to doing it because people think it's a huge deal.

Any kind of energy source that does not rely on a grid, or any other central source that can be controlled by a few, is fine with me.

The reliance on central control, whether it be government or private, ultimately dooms democracy and freedom.

---
"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."