Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Quote:

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

the snakeoil man

Sir Nicholas (Nick) Stern (born 22 April 1946) was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003 and is now a civil servant and government economic advisor in the UK.

He earned his B.A. in mathematics at Peterhouse, Cambridge and his D.Phil. in economics at Nuffield College, Oxford. He taught from 1986-1993 at the London School of Economics, becoming Professor of Economics, and from 1994 until 1999 was the Chief Economist and Special Counsellor to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. His research focuses on economic development and growth, including books on Kenya and the Green Revolution in India.

He was knighted and recruited by Gordon Brown, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, to work for the British government where, in 2003, he became second permanent secretary at H.M. Treasury, initially with responsibility for public finances, and head of the Government Economic Service. Having also been Director of Policy and Research for the Commission for Africa, he was, in July 2005, appointed to conduct reviews on the economics of climate change and also of development, which led to the publication of the Stern Review. He ceased to be a second permanent secretary at the Treasury though he retains the rank; the review team he heads is based in the Cabinet Office.

I notice that Mr. Stern is specific about the costs of avoiding global warming, but vague about the costs of not avoiding them. Does the fullness of the study reveal how expensive it would be not to stall global warming? And where does he see the break-even point between expected costs and benefits?

Mr. Stern practices voodoo economics

miniTAX wrote:

Mr. Stern practices voodoo economics

I suspected such after reading his biography.

Economics, albeit more prosaically, has also been subject to fads, whims and consensus views to which history has not been kind. Twenty-five years ago Britain was at an economic crossroads. The credibility of the British economy was collapsing as inflation and unemployment soared, manufacturing output slumped and the national debt spiralled upwards. Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, concluded that drastic action was required. Taxes were raised by £4bn (then a huge sum) in the 1981 Budget in order to provide scope for lower interest rates and tackle public sector borrowing. There was, unsurprisingly, substantial political opposition.

But, of more interest, 364 economists signed a letter to The Times stating that there was "no basis in economic theory or supporting evidence" for Sir Geoffrey's policy and that it threatened Britain's "social and political stability". An alternative course of action must be pursued, these savants insisted. Almost the entire academic economic establishment stood against the Government with a mere handful of brave "mavericks" dissenting from the consensus view. But, as we now know, the letter's signatories were wrong because they believed in the then ubiquitous, but faulty, Keynesian consensus of the time.

Walter,
BTW, where does your graph comes from ? Current annual CO2 emission is about 6,6GT C or 24 GT CO2 whereas your graph's is 40 GT CO2. Pls have your numbers straight.

It is said to be the official one as presented to the Houses of Parliament.

From the link I gave as souce. It is said to be the official one as presented to the Houses of Parliament.

I really wonder why you blame for that.

OK, that's the CO2-equivalent number, counting methane, NOx, CFC, HFC...
The projection curves are misleading because without error margin, they convey an idea of certitude. No ones knows how the biosphere would react. For example, IPCC SAR (1996) predicted methane concentration would rise whereas it has stabilized for nearly 10 years now and no one knows precisely how or why!

Walter Hinteler wrote:

From the link I gave as souce. It is said to be the official one as presented to the Houses of Parliament.

I really wonder why you blame for that.

OK, that's the CO2-equivalent number, counting methane, NOx, CFC, HFC...
The projection curves are misleading because without error margin, they convey an idea of certitude. No ones knows how the biosphere would react. For example, IPCC SAR (1996) predicted methane concentration would rise whereas it has stabilized for nearly 10 years now and no one knows precisely how or why!

Meanwhile you tell us how the economy will be destroyed by trying to reduce CO2 emisions.