Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

February 22, 2008

Britain, climate change leaders

Hesitation today in putting reductions into effect will have serious consequences tomorrow

Nicholas Stern

Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen. It requires large-scale and international action. By providing a strong policy framework to overcome this failure, governments can harness the tremendous power of markets to find effective, efficient, equitable and international responses to the challenge. For markets and entrepreneurship to work, that framework must be credible and predictable, but allow flexibility too.

The Climate Change Bill, currently in debate in the House of Lords, provides a huge opportunity to demonstrate the UK's commitment. Targets must be consistent with the scale of the problem - that means at least 80 per cent reductions by 2050 for the UK (relative to 1990); and they must promote efficiency and internationalism - that means openness to buying emissions reductions from poor countries.

Reversing the trend to higher global temperatures, more extreme and variable local weather patterns, increasing costs of natural disasters and potentially enormous population movements requires an urgent worldwide shift towards a low-carbon economy. Sound policy and international collaboration can deliver strong and clean growth for all at reasonable cost. Weak or delayed action will eventually choke off growth and is a far more costly option.

A global policy must satisfy three principles if it is to find international support: it must lead to cuts in CO2 emissions on the scale required; it must be implemented in the most cost-effective way; and it must be equitable, to take account of the double inequity - it is poor countries that are hit earliest and hardest and rich countries that have greater responsibility for past emissions. At the same time, with the welcome rapid growth of some parts of the developing world it is crucial that they participate if the “deep cuts” in emissions agreed in Bali last December are to be achieved.

The Bill will make the UK the first country in the world to have a legally binding long-term framework to cut CO2 emissions and adapt to climate change. The Bill proposes a 2050 target of at least 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions compared with 1990 levels, and a 2020 target of between 26 per cent and 32 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions against the same baseline. Five-yearly carbon emissions budgets will become the milestones on the way to the targets, and the first budget period begins this year.

Lord Turner of Ecchinswell has been appointed to chair the Committee on Climate Change, which will advise the Government on the 2050 target and the carbon budgets. He has a deep understanding both of the challenge and of how the private sector is central to any response.

The establishment of the committee is a radical institutional innovation. It will help us all to meet the UK's emissions targets by holding the Government to account. Significantly, one of the first jobs of the committee will be to report, as requested by the Prime Minister, on whether the 2050 target should be tightened up to 80 per cent. At Heiligendamm, the G8 agreed that the world must reduce global emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 in order to control the risks of severe climate change to acceptable levels.

But we should go farther. The UK, and other rich countries, should commit themselves to a target of at least 80 per cent. With a world reduction of 50 per cent that would bring us down to the world average only in 2050: we will remain above that between now and then. Given the historical responsibility of big countries for a large majority of the current stock of gases, that is surely the minimum cut that equity demands. Clarity and predictability require that the decision be taken quickly.

In addition to being effective and equitable, we must also be efficient through pressing down on costs. By putting an appropriate price on carbon, people will be faced with the full social cost of their actions. A common global price would be most efficient because emissions reductions will then take place wherever they are cheapest. It is possible to put a price on carbon, explicitly through tax or trading, or implicitly through regulation. A system of carbon trading, however, has three important advantages. First, quotas control the level of emissions directly; secondly, trading for countries who want to exceed those quotes encourages better sharing of costs across the world; and thirdly, they provide incentives for developing countries to participate.

Price volatility is sometimes argued as a problem with quotas and trading. However, price volatility can be reduced by clarity of policy, firm decisions on quotas and broader and deeper markets.

Thus there is a powerful case for a large element of carbon trading in the policy package in rich countries. Alongside rich countries setting their own strict targets on emissions, carbon prices at appropriate levels can be maintained that will give incentives both for reduction at home and purchase abroad.

The Climate Change Bill embodies elements of the three principles of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. If the 80 per cent target is adopted by the Government, as I believe it must, the UK will have made a legally binding commitment to emissions reductions that show an effective global policy response to climate change.

If, further, there is a clear understanding that some of this can be met by trade, we would not only help to keep down costs but also foster real incentives for developing countries to participate in the search for low-carbon growth while continuing their fight against poverty.

Lord Stern of Brentford is IG Patel Professor of Economics & Government at the London School of Economics and led the review on the economics of climate change published last year

â€œIt never ceases to amaze me the ego of the climate changers.. . that us humans actually can change the climate! How arrogant... To think mankind is singlehandedly overpowering the sun's influence is as arrogant as it is absurd.â€

The science does not claim that mankind is "overpowering" the sun. Ultimately all climate is created by the sun. The problem is that different atmospheric gases have different capacities for absorbing the sunâ€™s energy. Increase the concentrations of those that more effectively absorb the sunâ€™s energy and you increase the amount of the sun's heat that is retained. The 30%+ increase in CO2 concentrations caused by mankind in the past 100 years has to effect our climate - the science is very clear. If you donâ€™t understand the science it is no indicator of the science being wrong.

Tom, Grimsby,

The process for managing away the greenhouse gas emissions enhancing rates of climate change globally is called Contraction and Convergence [C&C].

It was the first recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report in 2000 and is the basis of the UK Climate Bill that Nicholas Stern is responding to.

Rates of C&C linked to the most recent runs of climate models as in IPCC AR4 [2007 are animated here [for PCs]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
[and here for Macs]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.hqx

A Meyer, London, UK

It never ceases to amaze me the ego of the climate changers - not only that they feel they can dictate how we live our lives but that us humans actually can change the climate! How arrogant - the planet controls the climate along with the sun and other influences. To think mankind is singlehandedly overpowering the sun's influence is as arrogant as it is absurd.

The origjnal Gaia hypothesis makes it clear - if something upsets the balance, gaia will deal with it, even if its us humans.

I did like this comment "The establishment of the committee is a radical institutional innovation" - only an economist could be so deluded as to think a committee could be a radical innovation. Proof if any were needed of man's ego over intelligence.

Tony, London,

It sounds as if NickB is ignorant of the peer review process used in science and, moreover, of the real IPCC AGW debate.

Rejection of the IPCC's conclusions is not the same as the rejection of valid science or of the scientific process. Fundamentally, the IPCC is a political body whose reviewers contain many non-scientist political appointees. The WHOLE POINT is that the IPCC's review process itself is flawed; it is not a scientific review process as one would associate with publications such as Nature or AAAS Science, and it is known to squelch opposing viewpoints and evidence which opposes its [pre-ordained]desired conclusions. Therefore, the validity of [each of]all of its [reports]conclusions is in doubt. That said, basing national policy decisions on IPCC work is in the least, irresponsible.

There are many other more immediate issues facing the world than "Global Warming." Try overfishing, water reclamation, food and energy, or whale hunting But these won't allow for the global redistribution of wealth.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

I agree that the climate change deniers are, alas, ignorant of the science and the most basic facts about what is already happening. There is no excuse for this, you can read it at www.ipcc.ch or even in a basic form on Wikipedia; if you don't accept this you should reject science generally, it all comes from the same process and methods. Stern wants us to take action so that future generations have something left. Hardly ignoble I'd say.

NickB, Southampton, UK

Man made pollution, over fishing and over population are bigger threats than this nebulous nonsense about whether man has much of an effect on the climate. Shouldn't we be looking at those first?

Mister Jones, Nanaimo, Canada

"Global Warming" is a misnomer. It is really "Global Fleecing."

Global Warming is a trend no doubt, a simple natural cycle of nature. But Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka the Al Gore hypothesis) is discredited science at best, intentional fraud at worst and is being soundly refuted. See:

U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Intro:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Yes, AGW is pure POLITICAL science, not hard science.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

"Global Warming" is a misnomer. It is really "Global Fleecing."

Global Warming is a trend no doubt, a simple natural cycle of nature. But Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka the Al Gore hypothesis) is discredited science at best, intentional fraud at worst, and is being soundly refuted. See:

U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Intro:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Yes, AGW is pure POLITICAL science, NOT hard science.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus") Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.

Dave, Phoenix, AZ, USA

"Fact 1 - The Antarctic had the greatest ever recorded depth of ice last year."

I doubt that is a fact. How long have we been measuring the thickness of the Antarctic ice? At how many points is it measured? If it has snowed a lot in Antarctica this year all that evidence of is increased precipitation, it is not an indicator of local temperature changes and certainly not of global temperature trends. Global temperature trends show a clear warming.

It was proven 150 years ago that CO2 absorbs radiant heat - its basic physics. Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 30%+ in 100 years will effect the climate. The Nobel winning chemist Arrhenius first noted this in 1896. There are 100+ years of scientific study to back up the IPCC's conclusions. You saloon bar scientists just aren't qualified to refute the scientific case.

Paul A, London, UK

I am still unconvinced that there is a man-made global warming problem. I say this because I am a historian and thus am fully aware of the many times in history that the climate has been warmer (and colder) than it is today.

However, I am willing to accept some precautions with one great proviso - are those who are pushing these ideas willing to incorporate in their rules, regulations and laws a clause that will cause them to expire if it turns out that the problem is a hoax? If they are not, if they then claim there are "common-sense" or "conservationist" reasons to keep everything in place, then they reveal what this entire event is - merely a classic attempt to reduce the liberty of the masses for the purpose of increasing their political power.

So will anyone stand up and say, "Yes, if it turns out the predictions are wrong, I will support dismantling wind farms, permitting SUVs and manufacturing incandescent light bulbs?"

D. Smithson, Philadelphia, PA

Fact 1 - The Antarctic had the greatest ever recorded depth of ice last year. Funny thing that?
Fact 2 - Remember 'mad cow disease and "scientists" predicting confidently that cases would multiply exponentially due to bad beef already eaten......wrong again sunshine!

Why is it that people seem to want a reasom to suffer? CLIMATE CHANGE IS A NATURAL PHENOMENA, GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!!

steve, Christchurch, New Zealand

Can anyone tell me what difference to the global temperature the Kyoto protocol has made since it was introduced? No? I thought not.

Dave, Southampton, UK

Dr Coles in LA is a classic example of a climate change denier. Do you know how many scientists there are in the word, Dr Coles? 400 is a tiny minority, and many of these know nothing about climate science! Others are paid by oil companies. If every scientific advance had to wait until the last few doubters agreed with it we'd still be in the middle ages.
Every argument I've heard from climate change deniers is so obviously full of holes that it makes Al-Fayed's case against Prince Philip look watertight by comparsion. Lord Stern, on the other hand, knows what he's talking about. Climate change is man-made, and those who say otherwise are either ignoring, or unaware of, the evidence.

Dr Richard Milne, Edinburgh,

Just look closely at a map of the world and then tell us what impact this country could have on climate change.

F Kimbal Johnson, Louth,Lincs, uk

All this hectoring... all these demands to control all our lives. All from the usual suspects who have been trying to boss us about on one pretext or another for the last 50 years. Always "for our own good".

A witch doctor at an eclipse might have said something similar. "Oh no! The sky-wolf has almost swallowed the Moon virgin! Give me silver and I will make him let her go!"

Climate change is clearly a myth.

Roger, Ipswich,

Why, now that man-made Global Warming has been disproved as bogus science and now largely discarded by the independent non-governmental scientists do we still get endless articles and statements from politicians and columniusts?
Sunspot activity has virtually ceased and with it temperatures have fallen, giving us the coldest winters in the Northern and Southern hemispheres for a long time. Antarctic ice is at record levels and ice between Canada and Greenland is also at a high level. The EU is retreating from both its biofuel and its emission controls policies.

Reputable - as distinct from government funded - climatologiksts are now speculating about another mini ice age. We shall look very silly if we stop emitting CO2 which provides the earth with its protection from becoming a giant snowball . We shall also starve and many will die of cold.

But hey-Ho build some more wind turbines anyway

christina Speight, London, UK

It is reassuring to see that Europe has learned from Enron. You too can make a fortunre by defrauding an unsuspecting public into investing in carbon offsets, etc. At least Al Gore will become even filthier rich than he has already become by convincing you Euros that no scientists can disagree!

David, Minneapolis, USA

If people care about this stuff, there's a great petition on the Downing Street website:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Fight4ourfuture/

Bob Robert, nottingham,

Politicians like carbon trading because the stinking rich can afford to apy for more carbon emissions. Energy rationing with fair share for all is more equitable.

Barry Crossland, Elland,

Doug from Basel,

"Pity we can't all sing from the same hymnsheet...."

That is called Fascism, and even if you Swiss never had a taste for it, the rest of us would rather not see it again.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

"Howver, Lord Stern, and others, would see us go back to a pre-industrial age society....for what?"

For what? For the ego-trip of dictating to us all and for the consultancy money that will surely inundate him. I don't think the earth is flat but I'd suggest the emperor is stark naked.

Neil McF, Southampton, England

Actually, the Earth isn't round - it's an oblate spheroid. Also, it doesn't have a temperature.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The argument seems to be that we have to reduce oursleves the the level of a third world country, whilst at the same time watch all the third world countries try to achieve the level of a first world country. The biggest producer of CO2 is China, which is only going to expand its output and India isn't far behind. Even if the UK reduced its output to zero, this would have no effect on global warming. Howver, Lord Stern, and others, would see us go back to a pre-industrial age society....for what?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Why is the scientific consensus on climate change so veremently attacked or denied by people with no background in climate sciences? I'm a biochemist and I don't expect climate scientists to start doubting or disagreeing with the consensus on how cells, DNA, proteins or other aspects of my discipline work. They don't have the background and, likewise, I don't have their background in climate studies. Therefore I accept their conclusions, confident that its gone through peer review and the science is solid.

Ross, Brighton,

With finite fossil fuels in terminal decline it is no longer a question of wether we agree or not on global warming. The technology exists to provide more than enough power the world needs through renewable scources, not Nuclear which is also finite and expensive and dangerous. It's a shame Governments can't join the dots, preferring to dither rather than take positive action.
400 Scientists are by far the minority.

Pete Furtek, Ostrava, Czech Republic

Conflicts arising from the shortage and high price of oil will cause damage on a much shorter time scale than global warming. Sea level rise is only a few mm per year

Paul , northwich, england

Hi Dr. Coles

A lot of people - including scientists - disputed that the earth was round. "It' s gotta be FLAT", they said, and such ignorance lasted centuries in some cases. Do we have to suffer more degradation of this planet, in the years to come, because of the slowcoaches? Pity we can't all sing from the same hymnsheet....

Doug, Basel, Switzerland

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Dr Coles, Los Angeles, USA