The Stern Report

silverharp

Has anyone read this or come across any views on it?

Some quick observations I came across are that the UK will still be building up their airports by 50% over the next decade or so and will still be expanding the road networks.

The stick will not be enough, and people will still drive 2 cars and have 2 or 3 foreign holidays per year

Doesn't take in to account Peak Oil in any serious way

Has very long term goals and doesn't address potential chaos in India and China when the Hymalayan melt water dries up over the next 20 years due to climate change

Is it a case that the public "can't handle the truth"

gonk

silverharp wrote:

Has anyone read this or come across any views on it?

Some quick observations I came across are that the UK will still be building up their airports by 50% over the next decade or so and will still be expanding the road networks.

The stick will not be enough, and people will still drive 2 cars and have 2 or 3 foreign holidays per year

Doesn't take in to account Peak Oil in any serious way

Has very long term goals and doesn't address potential chaos in India and China when the Hymalayan melt water dries up over the next 20 years due to climate change

Is it a case that the public "can't handle the truth"

I haven't read the report in full yet, I've just skimmed the executive summary (which is itself 27 pages long!). But, in fairness to Stern, I think some of the criticisms above are unwarranted.

In the context of climate change, peak oil is to some extent irrelevant. Even if there were an unlimited and easily recovered supply of fossil fuels, we can't keep burning them at the rate we are doing now without causing catastrophic climate change. That being so, one could argue that peak oil is potentially a good thing, as it may act as a spur to switch to renewables.

Stern has very long term goals, because as he says in the executive summary to his report: "The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next." In other words, the long lead times are not by choice, but because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere have already commited us to significant irreversible climate change in the short to medium term.

As for the Himalayan melt waters, this is mentioned on page 6 of the executive summary, and presumably covered in greater detail in the full report: "Warming will have many severe impacts, often mediated through water: Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the world’s population, predominantly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of China, and the Andes in South America. . . . "

silverharp

gonk wrote:

In the context of climate change, peak oil is to some extent irrelevant. Even if there were an unlimited and easily recovered supply of fossil fuels, we can't keep burning them at the rate we are doing now without causing catastrophic climate change. That being so, one could argue that peak oil is potentially a good thing, as it may act as a spur to switch to renewables.

imho, an early PO will either ride a coach and horses through emission reductions as the US and China build coal plants to compensate or will make the carbon taxes irrelevent as 3-5€ petrol will force change faster then any gov. plans.

Otherwise good comments, I guess people maybe picking up the media coverage of it which probably doesn't do it justice. However I still think one will have a crises before gov. takes any serious measures to curb carbon useage.

gonk

silverharp wrote:

imho, an early PO will . . . make the carbon taxes irrelevent as 3-5€ petrol will force change faster then any gov. plans.

Exactly!