Monday, October 30, 2006

Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change

The Stern review can now be found on the HM Treasury site in PDF format. This is what Tony Blair had to say "This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said.

"Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well."

"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now.

"We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further (than Kyoto)."

More details can be found in this BBC news report. We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing, for short term economic prosperity. Even if the Science is wrong (and i don't think it is, i've sifted through the data on climate change since the 1990's, i am a science nerd) then it is far better to be safer rather than sorry later. Other sources: Skynews report The Times report Guardian Unlimited Washington post report New Scientist report CNN report


Red Tulips said...

I do not trust the BBC in pretty much anything to do with Israel, the US, the Middle East, or global warming, so please provide another source?

I am not saying that the BBC is wrong here...I just do not like relying on the BBC for news on any of the above topics. It is clear they have an anti-West agenda.

Red Tulips said...

P.S.: It is clear there is climatic change going on. I believe the science is in on that one. It is not clear how much of it is due to human activity and how much we would be able to reverse the course of climatic change.

Kevin said...

There are plenty of other sources about the Stern review. Most of the report was leaked over the weekend to the press. I also gave a direct link to the stern review (which was commissioned by Brown).

And as with any source of news it is subject to bias of some form or another.
The BBC is just as biased as say Skynews is, which is part of the Murdoch media Empire (Murdoch would love to kill off the BBC so he'd gain complete control of the media over here).
I take any news report with a pinch of salt and do try and verify the facts from other sources where possible. Information gathering is a hobby of mine. I was in a rush this morning. However i shall add more sources to my post in due course.
An open mind is a healthy mind.

Red Tulips said...

Thanks for providing other sources!

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If by safe you mean destroying the economy of the US just in case we are effecting the climate, then you don't know what safe is. Poor nations cannot afford to be environmentally concious.

Kevin said...

Why does tackling climate change automatically mean it will destroy the US economy ? If you do nothing you could end up destroying it anyway.
As it is China has nearly overtaken America in overall emissions output, India is not far behind. Those two nations pose a far bigger threat to American economic dominace than paying to tackle climate change ever will.
It is the moral duty of all the developed nations to tackle climate change and to help those poorer nations in tackling climate change and to ensure they don't become part of the problem.
The true impact of human activity on climate change is still being looked into, but the evidence collected so far does not look too good for those who are of the view that we have had no impact on the climate by pumping out tons of Carbon dioxide into the atomsphere, which incidently does not magically disappear after a few years. it sits in the atmosphere and adds to the overall greenhouse effect.
Tackling Climate change will cause short term economic pain, but the benefits outweigh the possible risks. If we do nothing then we will only have ourselves to blame for the calamity that future generations will face. Climate change is happening now. And we have a small window to influence how it develops.

Jason said...

Tulips, I find it hard to take that attitude about bias seriously given that you link to and cite stuff from a site like LGF.

Red Tulips said...


I only link to LGF when it is a primary source - when they show pictures, video or otherwise independently verifiable information.

What I wanted in this case was some sort of balanced summary of the 700 page document which I will not read.

My overall opinion on climate change is not a denial that it is going on. Rather, I just am skeptical about the role of humanity in climate change, and the ability for humans to reverse climate change without collapsing our economies.

This is why I would like to read competing science when it comes to these reports.

Anyway, in some sense it does not matter, because the environment is tied to terrorism.

Alternative fuel sources are needed because oil is fueling the terrorists. Oil funds their hate. Oil is also going to eventually run out, and alternative fuel sources are a NECESSITY.

I also am 100% aware of the effects of pollution on the air we breathe and water we drink. I believe the science is in on that one.

But when something is called 'global climatic change,' I am skeptical of the involvement of humans in reaching the 'tipping point' of global warming. For instance, I am not sure you are aware, but Mt. St. Helens, when it erupted, spewed out plenty of toxic chemicals that affected the world over.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

There obviously is a need for immediate changes and we HAVE to find alternative fuel sources. I just am not sold on the cause of global warming being humans per se.

Anonymous said...

It's ok, God will fix it. Read the Bible. Everytime humans mess things up, God waves his magic wand and everything is ok (even if that means lots of dead humans).

We wouldn't have global warming if God didn't want it, so just go with it...

Red Tulips said...


Welcome to CfA!

For the record, I am an atheist and I do not want you to think that I believe God will fix anything. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Nobody doubts the greenhouse effect is real. Nobody doubts we are experiencing climate change. The doubt is whether the two are linked. If there was irrefutable evidence as opposed to nagging suspicion, then governments would be morally responsible to do something, whatever the costs involved. It's up to the scientists to come to an agreement on this issue and then lobby the governments of the world.

Kevin said...

There is a rudimentary agreement amongst some scientists on climate change. However it would be nice if people looked at the science that has already been collected for themselves and formulate an opinion, rather than relay on statements from the various intrested parties.
As far as i can tell the carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere is acclerating the natural process of the greenhouse effect which is one of the reasons why there is life on Earth. It is clear that if temperatures do rise as predicted then it will be chaos for not only humanity but for plant and animal life.
I've seen the scientists that disagree with the climate change science and they haven't convinced me that it is an entirely natural process occuring. Though i do have some scientific training and i tend to see things with a scientific slant. My basic point remains, if we can do something about climate change to slow down it's effects or to negate some of the changes, then we should do so. Instead of acting like school children fighting over who gets to go on the slide first before the bell rings for afternoon lessons.