Lord Stern, author of the Stern Review, chairman of the CCCEP, which a week ago was accused of committing £9 million research funding fraud, has now claimed that a lot more money than he previously estimated will be required to address climate change.
Nicholas Stern: cost of global warming ‘is worse than I feared’
Ten years ago the leading economist warned about climate change in a landmark report – he says while there is cause for optimism, the picture is still grim.
A lot has happened since Nicholas Stern, then a permanent secretary at the Treasury, produced his landmark review of the impact of climate change 10 years ago. His work was quickly recognised as the definitive account of the economic dangers posed to the planet by global warming.
Since then, global temperatures have risen to record levels. Arctic summer sea ice has continued to shrink, as have many major land-based ice sheets. Carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing amounts. At the same time, low-lying coastal areas, such as south Florida and parts of Bangladesh, are experiencing more and more flooding as sea levels have risen. Scientists have begun to link extreme weather events to the planet’s changing climate, while animal and plant species are gradualling moving towards the poles. So, a decade on, is Stern plunged in despair over our prospects? Not quite. While the picture is certainly grim, the world’s top climate economist still believes there are grounds for modest optimism.
“We have been too slow in acting on climate change,” he told the Observer. “In particular, we have delayed the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions for far too long. When we published our review, emissions were equivalent to the pumping of 40-41bn tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a year. Today there are around 50bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. At the same time, science is telling us that impacts of global warming – like ice sheet and glacier melting – are now happening much more quickly than we anticipated.”
In his report, published in October 2006, Stern warned that the cost of inaction would be far greater for future generations than the costs of actions taken today. “With hindsight, I now realise that I underestimated the risks. I should have been much stronger in what I said in the report about the costs of inaction. I underplayed the dangers.”
…
Will Lord Stern receive his extra government funding?
The Brexit vote shocked the British establishment, by delivering an enormous mandate to leave campaigners, despite vigorous efforts by remain campaigners to claim Brexit would damage Britain’s commitment to green policies.
There have been some encouraging signs since Brexit of a softening of British environmental policy, but since the heady days of the Brexit victory party, the leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage has accused the British government of backsliding, of trying to renege on their commitment to serve the will of the British people.
My guess is Lord Stern is testing the water. If he receives more cash, the British green revolution is still on. If not, who knows, maybe he’ll get a job with the United Nations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lord Stern should be more concerned about the UK’s electricity power supplies reliability.
First cold autumn day and National Grid website warned that its capacity to supply electricity fell below critical said the BBC news channel.
The story as reported on Reuters was not quite as you represent it:
“A National Grid spokesman told Reuters it was a notice to generators to “be ready because we might need you in a few hours.
“It’s not an emergency,” he said, adding there had been no power plant breakdowns.
Last month, National Grid said Britain’s electricity supply would be tight this winter but there would be enough power to meet demand due to emergency back-up capacity it procured last year.
It forecast the surplus power margin to be 6.6 percent this winter.
The day-ahead UK baseload power price rose 60 percent earlier on Monday to 150 pounds per megawatt hour due to colder temperatures, less wind energy output and tight power supplies in neighbouring France due to nuclear reactor outages.”
Do note that France is currently in trouble due to issues with its nukes being offline… which affects the power usually transmitted to the UK.
The pathetic wind power blowhards lobby to reduce nukes and then blame the reduced nuke capacity for grid shortages.
England has developed a concept known as “fuel poverty”. They count “fuel poverty” as anyone who spends more than 10% of their income on fuel to keep their home warm (not total energy usage.)
As a result of climate change policies to raise the price of fossil fuels, fuel poverty is rising. Roughly, 25,000 excess deaths occur each winter in England & Wales due primarily to fuel poverty. As much as 40,000 can die during extended cold snaps.
The surge in energy poverty and excess deaths has been caused by a rapid increase in fuel costs. This increase in fuel costs is due directly to UK taxation policies which rose out of climate change policies. In some bizarre twist of logic, the government blames fuel companies — which sort of misses the point that government policy is specifically trying to reduce the usage of fossil fuels.
They also blame inefficient home insulation and appliances for high energy costs — again, missing the point that those on pensions are least able to afford these upgrades.
“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.” — Science News citing a stud in The Lancet, May 20, 2015
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960897-2/fulltext
BBC reported that their info was from grid load website.
I looked for it and found this:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
From the graph it can be seen that yearly demand exceeded 40 GW only on one occasion in January.
On the daily demand graph it can be seen that for the couple hours today demand was 45 GW.
I have no idea what is critical demand, I would assume to be around 80% of the total capacity of the greed (both UK generated and imported)
Click on the French flag in the top left corner to see French usage
French demand is about to hit red
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
UK imports about 1.5 – 2 GW from France, Could they shut down the link when their domestic consumption hits critical ?
To add to Vukcevik (above), it’s a ‘given’ that the French will look after themselves first (what else wd we expect of the French, esp’lly as they’d like to ‘stick-it’ to the Brits over Brexit) and the feed to UK will be tripped in order to meet *their* demand.
Can you imagine ‘brown-outs’ in France ‘cos the Entente Cordiale(??!!) requires continuing power exports North over the Channel? Nah! Dream-on!
Now, y’all get out there and start blowing at them windmills and lighting candles over the solar panels. Lord Stern as Cheer-Leader, of course …. “Come on chaps! Harder….! More matches!
The aliens are coming. The risk is real. We must put 100% of our resources into fighting the aliens. Only a crazy person would wait until they arrive. We estimate they will arrive at least 50 years from now, so we must act now. Fifty years may not be enough time to stop the invasion. Deniers will be ridiculed, then feed to the aliens when they arrive—and they will. They are coming. We know they are. All our models say they are. Absolutely. Send money now.
You’ll need someone with political or religious authority to make that official, RC. A consensus and a bureaucratic commission are also handy.
A well constructed analogy, though.
“It’s worse than we thought” is the predictable refrain of the failed prophets of climate.
Here’s a organisation which announced recently it was going to do more to reduce its CO2 output and increase its use of renewable energy:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3000113/walmart-buys-into-game-changing-science-based-emissions-targets-with-host-of-new-green-goals
(note link gets paywalled after a couple of days)
Sainsbury’s, one of the largest UK supermarket chains, have also signed up for foolish virtue-signalling energy targets. But earlier this year they revealed that they don’t really believe it either: They’ve just built a set of new (fossil-fueled) power plants to avoid disastrous grid failure events.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/sainsburys-go-diy-on-power-generation/
When it comes down to reality, i.e. real money and real profits, not imaginary ‘Stern Economics’, all these large “green” corporations only jump one way. They know the truth but are reluctant to publicly admit it in the current scaremongering political environment because they don’t want to attract the ire of the green blob.
Sainsbury’s, one of the largest UK supermarket chains, have also signed up for foolish virtue-signalling energy targets. But earlier this year they revealed that they don’t really believe it either: They’ve just built a set of new (fossil-fueled) power plants to avoid disastrous grid failure events.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/sainsburys-go-diy-on-power-generation/
When it comes down to reality, i.e. real money and real profits, not imaginary ‘Stern Economics’, all these large “green” corporations only jump one way. They know the truth but are reluctant to publicly admit it in the current scaremongering political environment because they don’t want to attract the ire of the green blob.
Sainsbury’s, one of the largest UK supermarket chains, have also signed up for foolish virtue-signalling energy targets. But earlier this year they revealed that they don’t really believe it either: They’ve just built a set of new (fossil-fueled) power plants to avoid disastrous grid failure events.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/sainsburys-builds-its-own-power-plants-amid-energy-shortage-fear/
When it comes down to reality, i.e. real money and real profits, not imaginary ‘Stern Economics’, all these large “green” corporations only jump one way. They know the truth but are reluctant to publicly admit it in the current scaremongering political environment because they don’t want to attract the ire of the green blob.
Dang — victim of the dreaded triple post.
I blame climate change. (Although, it is more likely that ridiculous rotating advertisement that locks everyone’s browser. It’s just easier to blame climate change.)
There is nothing wrong with a business choosing an approach which may improve it’s profitability (based on increased sales.) That’s how capitalism is supposed to work.
Personally, I think Wal Mart would be better served to pay their employees a living wage.
Wal-Mart is a funder of John Podesta’s Centre for American Progress. http://freebeacon.com/politics/wal-mart-bought-that/ and also a client: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_Group
http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/walmart-wendy-clark-apple-target-hillary-clinton-campaign-wikileaks/306287/
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/12/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-repeatedly-praised-wal-mart-in-paid-speeches/
WHEN A GROUP of labor activists demanded in 2014 that Hillary Clinton use her influence with Wal-Mart — where she sat on the board of directors for six years — to raise workers’ wages, Clinton’s top aides turned to Wal-Mart’s former top lobbyist for advice on how to respond.
They are following the money. In 2010, Wal-Mart’s Robson Walton was present at a high-level meeting held at the Cancún IPCC COP and attended by then Mexican President Felipe Calderón, then World-Bank President Robert Zoellick, and George Soros, (also a Podesta CAP funder) among others, seeking to “express corporate and State approval for the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Forest Deforestation and Degradation) scheme, a proposal that has met with fierce resistance from many international NGO’s. WWF is heavily involved in what is yet another virtual carbon scheme, with the potential to generate billions, hence the involvement of corporates like Wal-Mart and financiers such as Soros.
There you go. Now, if only there was a reasonable opposition party in the United States. Unfortunately, we have become a single party nation.
There was a study of the flooding issue in South Miami that is the source of the claims that sea level rise has tripled there recently. That study says sea level rise there has been 9mm per year locally since 2006.
Since the world wide sea level rise rate has been 2 to 4 mm per year during that time, doesn’t that
mean there has been a local phenomenon there? Like land sinking or something?
Articles about the study don’t give an explanation, they just imply climate change effects are worse there for some undefined reason, and that has created higher sea level rise in that one region, which sounds impossible.
Correct. Land subsidence caused by building close to the shore where all the money is. It can also be caused by plate tectonics.
Yup. London sits in an area where the land has been known to be sinking for a long time. So, quite sensibly, they built the Thames barrier to reduce flooding risks. No need to appeal to global warming.
Most of the places in similar situations, that cannot bring themselves to do the sensible thing now, will probably still be blaming global warming when they get flooded in the future. Yes, I’m talking about you, New York.
And people like Lord Stern will still be around picking up a large pay cheque for contributing nothing useful.
Any significant changes in sea level rise in ten years is most likely due to ocean oscillations (the AMC & AMOC — which are the Atlantic equivalents of ENSO & PDO). Ocean oscillations act as a small sea surge like the front of a hurricane. In the Pacific it can be as much as 4-6 feet (which is why some islands disappear during El Nino years.) The AMOC is reported to have caused a sea level increase on the East Coast of 4-5 inches in 2009-2010 — I’m not sure about 9 inches over ten years. I would like to see that source.
In general, most people claim that Florida is sinking relative to the Northeast because of post-glacial isostatic rebound. However, the difference is ~2.0-2.5 mm/year compared to 1.5-2.0 mm/year in the Northeast and Canada. Over the last century, the difference is about 1.5-2.5 inches total sinkage of Florida. (These numbers come from bloggers rather than scientific studies, because I could not find one on short notice — but they seem reasonable.)
Miami is built too low. It is only 2-3 feet above sea level in most downtown areas. Normal high tide is 2 feet above sea level. King Tides are 3-4 feet above sea level.