Is global warming an urgent danger?

...for the UK Government, it is notable for being the first report on the topic that has actually been written by an economist and not a scientist. Not only that, until a little over a year ago he was pretty neutral to the debate. Although the report is some 700 pages long, Stern states that to tackle Climate Change we need to invest as little as 1% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), however on the other side of the debate, if we do nothing, it is ...
...a low carbon economy, which is going to take a long time to achieve.

A report of this complexity and importance is always going to have supporters and opponents in politics and in the population in general. I, for one, welcomed the report as a positive step forward, and I personally think this is one of the best things this government might have done in that the evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming in my opinion, (which is ... more

The Stern Report was released in October 2006. This lengthy document takes an international perspective on the challenge of Climate Change/Global Warming, and the impacts on the Economy if we do nothing/act now. Written by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK Government, it is notable for being the first report on the topic that has actually been written by an economist and not a scientist. Not only that, until a little over a year ago he was pretty neutral to the debate. Although the report is some 700 pages long, Stern states that to tackle Climate Change we need to invest as little as 1% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), however on the other side of the debate, if we do nothing, it is likely to cost up to 20% of GDP in a recession in the future, and we have the biggest market failure possible.

The report looks at the economics of the cost of climate change and the cost of stablisation as well as the transition process to a low carbon economy, which is going to take a long time to achieve.

A report of this complexity and importance is always going to have supporters and opponents in politics and in the population in general. I, for one, welcomed the report as a positive step forward, and I personally think this is one of the best things this government might have done in that the evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming in my opinion, (which is based on academic studies, and not based on what I read in the newspapers). Brown talked about the need for Technology Transfer to developing nations, and I completely support that, while at the same time I understand it is not that straightforward. One thing is for sure is that I personally can understand China's point of view in that why should they suffer now when they are trying to develop their economy, when Europe and America managed to develop their own economies and at the same time left this problem for future generations to clean up. Al Gore's brilliant film, An Inconvenient Truth also seeks to educate the western world in our attitudes and beliefs and tries to dispel the commonly held theories such as the one that global warming is cyclical and normal. This might be partly true as the world has seen HUGE changes over the last 4.6 billion years, but what is unprecedented is the RATE of the change. The other scarily commonly spouted belief among the general population is that it is some kind of conspiracy theory, and that "green taxes" are just another way of getting money out of us all.

The Key Findings of the Stern Report
----------------------------------------------
The first key finding is that most climate models show almost a doubling of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times, and this is likely to lead to a global temperature rise of between 2 degrees and 5 degrees Celsius and several studies show that there is a 20% chance of temperatures rising beyond 5 degrees Celsius. This has all happened in the last 150 years, and nothing like this has ever occurred in the 650000 years before now (so this is not a cyclical occurrence, as many believe)

This increase might not seem so terrible, especially here in the UK where we would probably all welcome an additional 5 degrees Celsius nine months of the year, but the warming intensifies the water cycle and we will get more cycles of heavy rainfalls followed by droughts and by the end of this century the percentage of land in an extreme drought stage will increase from 1% to 30%. The warmer airs and oceans will mean there will be more extreme weather such as hurricanes and typhoons, and the melting of the ice caps will cause the sea levels to rise by 5-12 metres, which would actually displace 300 million people worldwide (equivalent to the whole of the USA). It is also developing countries which tend to be warmer, and possibly more populated, where the effects will be felt the worse.

The science behind these conclusions is covered in Chapter one of the Stern Report itself and makes reference to pages of scientific articles that are far to numerous to mention here. But to get it into perspective, in 100 years greenhouse gases will have trebled pre industrial times, and we will certainly see the 5 degrees increase in temperatures - compare this to the fact that we are currently only 5 degrees warmer than the last ice age..such a change would change our physical world entirely.

The impact goes across many different systems, including the food chain, the water system, the ecosystem, and extreme weather events or irreversible physical changes. We can expect falling crop yields across the globe, of significant proportion. Sea levels will threaten major cities around the world including London, New York, Tokyo, Shanghai. Coral reef systems will have died even with a 1-2 degree change and many parts of the ecosystem will also have died and there will have been significant changes at the polar ice caps.

The Stern report logically concludes that Emissions have increased in line with economic growth, but on the positive side the report also finds that if we take action now and over the next ten or twenty years, then we can have an impact in the latter half of this century, and if emissions can peak between 450-550 parts per million CO2e in the next 10-20 years and then fall.

As I said earlier, one of the key points that the Stern report made was that to stabilise Greenhouse Gases under this 550ppm figure by 2050 will have a cost of approximately 1% of Gross Domestic Product. This is a significant amount of money, but it can be done, for example by reducing demand for emissions intensive goods and services, increasing efficiencies and switching to lower carbon technologies for power, heating and transport. However where there are costs there will always be new opportunities for lower carbon technologies so it is not all bad news.

Power heat and transport technologies need to be 60-75% reduction in emissions by 2050 if the target is to be reached and significant changes in our transport habits and the modes of transport available (or the efficiency) will be required too.

Economic models about the costs are only models and they will depend on the pace of innovation across the world, and while 1% is taken as the mode, estimates vary from a cost benefit of 2% of GDP to a cost of 5% GDP (which is of course very significant). As we are already at 430ppm today, then we need to act quickly but achieving less than 450ppm will now be impossible because of the change in technologies needed.

A significant contributor to Global emissions is that of deforestation (and change in land use), which causes 18% of Global emissions, a staggering amount that needs urgent action and attention in itself. Power causes the most emissions, with 24% of Global totals, and Transport, Industry and Agriculture cause 14% each.

There has also been plenty of debate about which countries need to clean up their act. The Stern report recognises that poorer countries have actually done little damage and cannot necessarily afford the finance needed to move to lower carbon technologies and therefore the international community must support them in adapting.

Policy Responses
------------------

There are two main government policy responses to the need to reduce overall greenhouse gases - Carbon Pricing and Technology Policy. Both have many opponents, in that the first suggests more "green" taxes and the second, Technology, does mean a shift in the technology we use, which needs to be tackled with innovative solutions if it is to succeed.

Much has been written about Carbon pricing or the need to establish such a price so that organisations/people pay for their activities. Basically, because our actions have an effect on the climate in the future and not today, then currently we are not paying the full cost of those actions, whereas a Carbon pricing method through taxation or regulation would help achieve as this would mean industries and individuals would switch to lower carbon alternatives.

It is also critical that there are conditions so that we have international collective action otherwise there is little that one country can do on its own. One of the examples of this is Technology Transfer, where low carbon technologies can be introduced into developing countries so that we do not experience a similar level of emissions as those countries move through dirtier technologies.

People Responses
-------------------
There is a lot of sceptism about whether the whole "Global Warming" debate exists as a con to extort more taxes out of people. IDAG (2005) shows that a number of authors have demonstrated that there is an unprecedented change in the global temperature within the last milennium. The argument here is whether this warming is "normal" and cyclical or not. Current Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than any time in the last 650000 years and many sources understand that these gases warm the atmosphere through radiation. The Stern report, however, is not the work of one person, but it is the combined results of many esteeemed scientists, who are not linked to the government.

The concept of Carbon pricing is seen as just another tax by many and perhaps a stealth tax, and definitely a tax which is linked to motoring despite the fact that many activities other than motoring affect sustainability. It is unfortunate that the short term tactics mean that we have to use taxation as a means to reduce useage/wasteage.

The real difficulty is that people are self interested and there is no real motivation for them to do the right thing for the greater good of the planet unless they are coerced to do so. People act in their own self interests despite the fact that they would be better off if they considered the cooperation of others (game theory). Additionally, if countries perceive that the costs of doing the right thing outweigh the immediate benefits then this could also be a barrier.

Internationally it is understood that urban areas account for more than 3/4 of carbon emissions from human activities and these major cities have pledged to lower the costs of greener technologies and by tackling air pollution.

Interestingly, The Pew Survey highlights that around the world at least 50% of people believe that climate change matters a great deal or a fair amount - yet the same survey shows that the USA, UK and Russia are the most sceptical, with 47% of Americans, 34% of Russians and 32%of Britons believing it does not matter at all.

The Stern report states that international cooperation is absoluately critical and that there needs to be a social cost to carbon. the report highlights that the cost of carbon needs to be similar across the world, so that the cost of abatement is similar. However in practice this is impossible as different countries have different priorities.

There can no longer be any doubt that Climate change is presenting serious risks to the world, and that the world has to respond gobally. It often fweels impossible that despite what we do, it will not have a significant effect on our future, and the truth is that it will not, but what we do now in the next 10-20 years will have an effect on our lives in the latter part of this century. the Stern report is very academic and economic by its nature in that it will compare the social costs of using up more carbon with the "abatement" costs of not using that carbon.

from an econmic point of view, a lack of action will likely result in a depression similar to the depression of the early 20th century, within the current generations.

I am not sure how we can stop the current path that we are on, especially with so much scepticism despite all the science. The Stern Report is, after all a macro economic report, and not a micro economic report concentrating on taxes etc. Undoubtedly the biggest major challenge that there can be is the international cooperation on emissions, for which different countries have very different points of view, particularly developing nations, who do not believe their economies should suffer as a result of the previous actions of Europe and America. So while there is little doubt about the science behind the Climate Change debate, there still remains a huge amount of international debate about just HOW we can reverse the effects of that change  

...less