At The Bar of TalkClimateChange
When former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern released his report of the same name last year, he brought about a fundamental shift in the climate debate – moving from an environmental to an economic focus.
Essentially, the Stern report concluded that the impacts of climate change are likely to far outweigh the cost of avoiding it: The effects of global warming could swallow 20% of the world’s GDP, compared to the 1% of world GDP required to implement measures to avoid the problem.
It is this very issue that polarizes myself and fellow TalkClimateChange writer Daryl, who would no doubt argue that Stern’s numbers are the wrong way around.
Should myself, Red Daryl and Lord Stern find ourselves discussing this over a couple of beers one evening, the former world bank economist would no doubt repeat his warning last week, 18 months after publication of the original report, that his original analysis underestimated the severity of the situation:
“Emissions are growing much faster than we’d thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we’d thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate change seems to be faster.”
Stern’s warning is based on findings published by a number of polar experts during the past year which claim that the Arctic and Antarctic are losing ice much faster than thought previously, meaning that sea level rises could be more severe than originally suggested by the IPCC. Further studies examining the way in which greenhouse gasses are transferred between land, sea and atmosphere suggest that scientists originally underestimated the speed and strength with which serious climate change will take place.
After getting another round of beers in, my friend Daryl would surely take issue with the economist, arguing most elegantly and articulately along the following lines:
We now have data that proves the earth is not warming, although CO2 levels are rising faster than ever. In fact, the Earth might actually be cooling - depending on who you believe in the temperature record department.
This apparent anomaly is called “natural variability” by the climate faithful, the same phenomenon that I was told repeatedly did not factor into the recent warming trend of the last century. While the recent period 2000-2008 is not long enough to be a trend, looking at the natural inputs to climate I think it is the start of one - my opinion of course - but the writing on the wall says the CO2 levels and the temperature have decoupled.
We cannot even begin to quantify the human impact on temperature from the natural noise in the system - the contribution is so small as to be undefinable. This is what we are really dealing with here, an un-measurable effect and over-inflated climate sensitivity theory.
Following another round of drinks, I would pitch my own opinion: Climate science is not absolute, and I won’t pretend to have a thorough enough understanding of the scientific detail (which very few commentators do) to be able to side comfortably with either argument about the nature and level of any impending catastrophe. An acceptance of some considerable risk is about as far as I’d like to go. I also believe that the 20% / 1% cost of inaction vs cost of action ratio is perhaps a little exaggerated, although managed properly I believe that the additional benefits of a carbon neutral economy outweigh the transition costs.
Summing up, and in consideration of all angles of the argument, taking account of the reliability and source of all claims, and balancing all likely impacts and outcomes, I’d have to say that preventing climate change is an investment we need to make - but make cautiously and with due process.
The discussion would no doubt go on long into the night as we debate the merits of the different scientific arguments, the economic and social impacts of different changes, and the complete impracticality of many proposals. As we finally stagger home after many hours we are unlikely to be in agreement, but it’s an interesting discussion.
Adaptation is a much better way to go than mitigation.
Look, let’s say we spend tillions of dollars to cut carbon emissions. Our we 100% sure that will stop or reverse climate change.
If however, we spend tillions on adapting to the change,(relocating people from coastal areas, irrigation for drought stricken areas, adapting to more severe weather) then we are almost 100% guaranteed that the solutions will work.