Stern's climate report. Too gloomy?

Last week's UK climate change report by Sir Nicolas Stern has caused quite a storm.
While some have questioned the report's finding, critics still say we need to do more to tackle the problem of global warming.
An editorial in says Stern's figures "may well turn out to be wrong." But that doesn't mean we should ignore his recommendations.
In his report, Stern tried to balance the cost of economic cost of global warming on our lives, versus the cost of taking making remedies to reduce out greenhouse gas emissions. He reckons the world could stabilize emissions at a modest 1% cost of GDP by 2050. If we do nothing, he says the economic cost could be as high as 5-20% of GDP over the next couple of centuries.
Whatever the real figures are The Economist concludes: "The costs are not huge. The dangers are."

The Economist in a separate article suggests that the Stern report is really directed at trying to wake up the United States to the threat of global warming. The article suggests the timing is good with different initiativees currently being pushed forward in the U.S., including California's new emissions targets, federal biofuels subsidies and increasing inveestment in green technologies.

Newsweek magazine columnist Robert J. Samuelson doesn't think much of the Stern report. He accuses Stern of being too alarmist and inaccurate with his facts. You can argue with some of Stern's conclusions, but Samuelson own arguments are weaker.
For instance, he argues that today's technologies are insufficient to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways. Well, that's a pretty defeatist stance. To be sure, some of the forecasts are fairly grim, and technology is behind the curve. But Samuelson seems to be saying we should just give up. Whatever happened to our faith in man's ingenuity. He also argues that "in rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways."
Okay, so it's easy to be cynical about politicians. But that doesn't mean that politicians NEVER do the right thing when faced with objective facts.

His third argument is perhaps his best. "Even if rich countries cut emissions, it won't make much difference unless poor countries do likewise—and so far, they've refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts." He has a point here, and it's one the world needs to do more to address. But it's also no excuse for the developed world to do nothing.

If anyone still isn't convinced about the dangers of our addiction to oil, then they should read the New York Times Sunday Business report 'Oil, Cash and Corruption.' The story amply demonstrates the corrosiveness of oil in oil-rich states.

Click here for the NYT Sunday Business story (it's the paper's No 3 most-read story on the web).
Click here for the Newsweek column.

Comments

[Melissa Meehan]

Robert J. Samuelson does take a defeatist stance, thank you for pointing that out. I for one have incredible faith in human ingenuity. I believe that we will band together to solve the immense problem of global warming and in doing so we will:
1. Empower struggling American farmers who will benefit economically from biofuels and/or wind power
2. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and stop sending our money to people who hate us)
3. Create a new generation of savvy American engineers (let's keep up with Europe and Japan folks!)
4. Improve our health through cleaner air and water – a positive side effect of reducing fossil fuel pollution.
5. Prevent the extinction of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of species (this is documented - see link below.)
6. Spur a new clean energy economy

How's that for optimism???

Samuelson is a respected economic journalist and his voice deserves to be heard. However, to suggest that his knowledge surpasses that of Stern, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, is questionable.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000080CA-1C3D-143C-9C3D83414B7F0000

[David Adams]

Melissa, you are to be commended for your optimism. Above all, I can see that it is based on realistic assessments of our potential for getting out of this mess. That's the key.
Cheers,
David

[jane Maxwell]

I see it as unlikely that humans will be able to completely prevent global warming. It is a little too late for that, but certainly we can mitigate the effects. So we have no excuse for giving up. But a lot of people like to believe there is nothing they can do so they don't have to feel guilty about not trying. A really good book with a lot of information on how we can all help "The Ravaging Tide" by Mike Tidwell. It is a fascinating and informative book.

[dadams]

Jane, I hope you read the item I wrote the other day about native Energy.
Here's the link:
http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2006/11/south_florida_s.html