´óÏó´«Ã½

Jeremy could ask him whether he sees any signs that his report has been taken on board, either by the UK government or by any other government around the world?

I certainly can't: in the UK we have Heathrow expansion which makes a mockery of any climate change targets, while around the world we have governments pursuing the same old policies which have driven emissions up.

The problem we face is two-fold - not only how do we cut global carbon emissions to a level that prevents catastrophic global warming, but how do we do it in a way that allows poor countries (who have contributed least to the problem, but who wll have to now develop in low-carbon ways as we have 'used up' the atmosphere's capacity to cope with carbon emissions) to continue to develop. How would Sir Nicholas propose the negotiations might resolve this?

What should people do locally. My local planning committee has just approved part of a school playing field to be turned into a car park for teachers and visitors and children are bused to exercise in a coach (costing money, fuel pollution and carbon emissions) instead of continuing to use the playing field that will be tarmacked. The council are doing nothing about getting parents, staff and visitors out of their cars and using green methods of transport. The highways officer said he could do nothing because moving people parking in one road means they park in another!

Why discuss climate change in of all places Bali - surely you could prove a point by using video-link only? How much carbon will this whole summit emit before it ends up achieving nothing due to intransigence the world over?

I would like to ask Sir Nicholas the following.

With governments seemingly unable to take the drastic action needed to tackle climate change which ignores political borders, what role do NGOs and individuals have to ensure action is taken. Can NGOs and individuals have a real impact on the political debate around climate change, and can we move beyond telling individuals all they can do to help is to turn off their lightbulbs.

Thanks

As I understand it, whilst there is growing evidence that global warming is an issue there remains many more FACTS to show there is nothing to worry about. I agree the price is high if this is wrong but people that argue against the Global Warming idea always seem to have the better hand than those that just seem want to instill a fear for not doing anything.

Is "global warming" just a convenient way of keeping poor countries poor and if it is a real issue how can we justify stopping countries wanting nuclear power installations?

Keith

According to Partha Dasgupta, if we would use Sir Nicholas' recommendations on the rates of time discounting and risk aversion, we would have to save 97.5% of our income. How much does Sir Nicholas save himself? Why does Sir Nicholas think he has the right to tell me how much I should save?

Dennis Healey once said "when in a hole, first stop digging". Given the importance of ending use of fossil fuels and investing instead in renewables, shouldn't governments (including the UK) stop exploration for and extraction of oil and coal ? Ie put a cap on utilisation of resources/ coversion to reserves ?

The Stern Report was excellent for its projected figures and targets. There is a figure I wish to know because I consider it to be an important target. Many British people remain deeply sceptical about global warming and its likely effect on civilisation as we know it. They include: congential doubters, sceptics, nay-sayers, cynics, conspiracy theorists, people who rejoice in chaos, and those who studiously avoid letting facts get in the way of their opinions. What proportion of the British population must be actively involved in being part of the solution. (The 'politician' response would be: the more the better. Please do not accept this as an answer. It is a figure I am after, not a glib response.)

We live on a planet consisting of largely democratic nation states but democracies are notoriously poor political systems for developing and implementing radical and deeply unpopular policies of the type needed to confront climate change. i.e. making sacrifices. Will implementing the policies we need to effectively confront global climate change require abandonment of democratic principles or is there a secret formula for moving democracies towards effective action? Can democracy survive climate change?

Did the Stern Report use a discounted cash flow approach to assessing the future GDP costs of climate change? If not, why was this standard economic principle not incorporated into the analysis?

According to Partha Dasgupta, if we would use Sir Nicholas' recommendations on the rates of time discounting and risk aversion, we would have to save 97.5% of our income. How much does Sir Nicholas save himself? Why does Sir Nicholas think he has the right to tell me how much I should save?

How can business plan for climate change without government regulation? Do you think that companies should be required by law under the Climate Change Bill to report and cut their carbon emissions?

Sir Nicholas , I greet you, My concern is that your estmate are so general in that for poor countries like Uganda my country where the highest damage of climatic change occur with little or no efforts to curb the incidences, the over all cost is likely to be over whelming than the one you have in mind.

Instead of flapping on about what everybody can do (commendable but puny), why not concentrate on what leadership should do? I would suggest securing international treaties to harness and distribute solar energy from deserts and wave power in seas (now shown to be the principal adequate & economic global non-carbon power resources), and to insure that every country gets a share so that late developers don't continually subvert the initial work undertaken by the technologically advanced countries. Don't you believe that is what will be necessary to take decisive action in time?

The Co2 bandits at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ need to set a leading example of carbon trading . Keep the ever delightful Top Gear by scrapping all the gas guzzling helicopter rides ; along with thicko style guru initiated
programmes bullying gullible viewers to buy 'fashionable' ( ergo usually horrible )new wardrobes,'make over'
their homes, and squander their
hard won liberty bonding with Agas

If , as the paleoanthropolgists say , we all originally fled Africa in search of green and pleasant pastures new , would Sir Nick advise that the influential west to , say , introduce fuel rationing on a needs-tested basis - before we bring about the same arid , diseased conditions ( not to mention obese cockroaches )and chronic water shortages here with nowhere nicer to go ?

It is possible to have a sustainable aviation policy and continue to have more flights every year?

As with all attempts to change behaviour we have to lead by example. Can you ask Mr Stern what he is doing personally to reduce climate change and offset the impacts of his lifestyle?

Sir Nicholas , I greet you, My concern is that your estmate are so general in that for poor countries like Uganda my country where the highest damage of climatic change occur with little or no efforts to curb the incidences, the over all cost is likely to be over whelming than the one you have in mind.
Than you
Peter Buyondo Kampala

Would Sir Nicholas like to comment on the irony of the fact that with even the PM now prepared to talk about 80% emission cuts by 2050, plans are in hand for the building of a new generation of coal fired power stations here.

What about population levels? Given the recent predictions of a near doubling of UK population over the next 50 years, then a 50% reduction in C02 emissions (based on current population size) will mean we are still polluting at current rates in 2070. Is it not time that Governments started talking about manageable population size (instead of concentrating soley on migration) so that quality (as opposed to quantity) of life can be improved?

I would like three questions raised:

1)Where are the graphs that show that CO2 in general and human produced CO2 in particular is the/a controlling variable that changes the direction of global warming/cooling. For this I want to see a graph that shows the turning points on it led by an increase in CO2. What was goimng on in or around 1000AD when the CO2 rose similarly to now? Was jousting environmentally harmful? The answer is the backbone of all envirnmental tax raising worldwide.
2)If we keep nuclear. Where are and what are the worlds supplies. Can we rely on them?
3) The new LNG pipe line just came past us. Great engineering, but again what if we fall out with Russia or the suppliers choose a more lucrative China or India to sell to.

Realistically, politically, no democratic government is going to restrict air travel or cut consumption of goods enough to meet the targets. Nor is it morally acceptable to limit the improvements in quality of life in developing countries. It isn't going to happen enough.

isn't it time to start preparing for and investing in the environment we will need to live in with a much higher temperature, sea levels and extreemes of weather. To start building all homes to be flood resistant, move coastal towns to higher ground and find crops that will grow in the new environment.

To pretend we can prevent claimate change is like King Canute!

I would ask Nick Stern the following:

1. why is he gallivanting across to Bali for a jolly? Not that this is uncommon for the IPCC. Last year it was Mauritius that they descended upon. Why is he being a hypocrite?

2. Why did he not follow Treasury guidelines around discount rates when producing the Report last year. Had these been applied, then adaptation would have been the only economical way forward.

3. How does Nick feel about the large number of serious economists who have given his report an academic 'kicking'? 2006 October's World Economic Journal published several criticism of his methodology from various economists.

4. How does Nick reconcile the IPCC measured report with his own report which was based on sensationalism and voodoo science? Why should we trust a report that is not based on the consensus?

No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse gasses, with the world population growing at an ever increasing rate are we not fighting a loosing battle. We have to grow as much food in the next 50 years as has been grown in the last 10,000 years. What effect will this have on climate change?

It is possible to have a sustainable aviation policy and continue to have more flights every year?

Instead of flapping on about what everybody can do (commendable but puny), why not concentrate on what leadership should do? I would suggest securing international treaties to harness and distribute solar energy from deserts and wave power in seas (now shown to be the principal adequate & economic global non-carbon power resources), and to insure that every country gets a share so that late developers don't continually subvert the initial work undertaken by the technologically advanced countries. Don't you believe that is what will be necessary to take decisive action in time?

I would ask Nick Stern the following:

1. why is he gallivanting across to Bali for a jolly? Not that this is uncommon for the IPCC. Last year it was Mauritius that they descended upon. Why is he being a hypocrite?

2. Why did he not follow Treasury guidelines around discount rates when producing the Report last year. Had these been applied, then adaptation would have been the only economical way forward.

3. How does Nick feel about the large number of serious economists who have given his report an academic 'kicking'? 2006 October's World Economic Journal published several criticism of his methodology from various economists.

4. How does Nick reconcile the IPCC measured report with his own report which was based on sensationalism and voodoo science? Why should we trust a report that is not based on the consensus?

Jeremy could ask him whether he sees any signs that his report has been taken on board, either by the UK government or by any other government around the world?

I certainly can't: in the UK we have Heathrow expansion which makes a mockery of any climate change targets, while around the world we have governments pursuing the same old policies which have driven emissions up.

Could you please ask Sir Nicholas if he would agree with me that the only answer, in the long term is population control? If some one has 5 children, then eventually they are going to want 5 cars! There is talk of hydrogen powered cars but how is the hydrogen produced? electrolysis or liquifraction. The tax system should be changed to encourage people to have smaller families. In many countries, large families are raised because of worries about poverty in old age. The savings on child benefit could be used to improve pensions, so making people feel more secure in their old age.

Here are a few questions;

If Europeans have really been so concerned about climate change, why did they waste their technological resources on designing a super jumbo airplane which will never see a dime in profits, a redundant space program 40 years behind America and Russia, a redundant global satellite positioning system that isn't needed and the Americans will probably shoot out of the sky for security reasons instead of researching and developing new technologies for power generation which would not contribute to GHG emissions, technologies which if successful would have earned a fortune in profits and created countless new jobs?

Why is Europe wasting its time and efforts playing games at the margins of the problem with science fair type experiments such as wind farms and solar boilers which cannot be scaled up to anything meaningful and hopeless pie in the sky experiments like nuclear fusion which won't come to fruition for decades if it ever does instead of working on industrial sized plants with potentially viable and significant technologies?

Why has the EU continued to uselessly bash the US for not signing Kyoto (which it has failed miserably to comply with itself) while at the same time making no demands of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, or other nations who make major contributions to the problem? How will it deal with the consequences of having alienated the US on so many issues that Americans have acquired a visceral hatred and distrust of anything Europe has to say at this point?

Why does Europe continue to favor a carbon trading scheme which has already been revealed as a fraud in Europe and why does it think it can buy its way out of real sacrifices?

How much thought have environmentalists given to the economic consequences to the world if drastic GHG cuts were actually made (real world, not pie in the sky) and what plans have they made to deal with them? These consequences would be in the nature of sharply reducing the world's agricultural output and industrial activity.

What thoughts and programs have environmentalists given to long term population reductions to decrease the demand for products and services which result in GHG emissions and how do they expect to deal with increased expectations of those in the developing world for the products of modern technology which also result in increased GHG emissions?

If you don't have an answer to these questions, let me suggest one; the reason these core issues have not been adequately addressed is that Europe has been run by some incredibly stupid people. Here's another; that Europe isn't really concerned about climate change at all, it's merely one more way for Europe to bash American to divert attention from its own miserable failures.

Could you please ask Sir Nicholas if he would agree with me that the only answer, in the long term is population control? If some one has 5 children, then eventually they are going to want 5 cars! There is talk of hydrogen powered cars but how is the hydrogen produced? electrolysis or liquifraction. The tax system should be changed to encourage people ot have smaller families. In many countries, large families are raised because of worries about poverty in old age. The savings on child benefit could be used to improve pensions, so making people feel more secure in their old age.

What about population levels? Given the recent predictions of a near doubling of UK population over the next 50 years, then a 50% reduction in C02 emissions (based on current population size) will mean we are still polluting at current rates in 2070. Is it not time that Governments started talking about manageable population size (instead of concentrating soley on migration) so that quality (as opposed to quantity) of life can be improved?

No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse gasses, with the world population growing at an ever increasing rate are we not fighting a loosing battle. We have to grow as much food in the next 50 years as has been grown in the last 10,000 years. What effect will this have on climate change?

Instead of flapping on about what everybody can do (commendable but puny), why not concentrate on what leadership should do? I would suggest securing international treaties to harness and distribute solar energy from deserts and wave power in seas (now shown to be the principal adequate & economic global non-carbon power resources), and to insure that every country gets a share so that late developers don't continually subvert the initial work undertaken by the technologically advanced countries. Don't you believe that is what will be necessary to take decisive action in time?

How does Sir Nicholas see the World Bank's role in achieving carbon emission cuts?
Given that it seems near to impossible for governments to agree a concrete plan due to self-interests, the World Bank could at least do its bit by providing funds for renewable energy projects at the expense of polluting projects. Or will this just result in a reduction of funding by the first world?

No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse gasses, with the world population growing at an ever increasing rate are we not fighting a loosing battle. We have to grow as much food in the next 50 years as has been grown in the last 10,000 years. What effect will this have on climate change?

Can you see any hope for a commond ground in Bali. Bali is an opportunity to prove that we are willing to save the world from the adverse effects of climate change. but i think collective measures are still faraway. what do you think?

How does Sir Nicholas see the World Bank's role in achieving carbon emission cuts?
Given that it seems near to impossible for governments to agree a concrete plan due to self-interests, the World Bank could at least do its bit by providing funds for renewable energy projects at the expense of polluting projects. Or will this just result in a reduction of funding by the first world?

Jeremy could ask him whether he sees any signs that his report has been taken on board, either by the UK government or by any other government around the world?

I certainly can't: in the UK we have Heathrow expansion which makes a mockery of any climate change targets, while around the world we have governments pursuing the same old policies which have driven emissions up.

The developing world must continually expand the electric power supply. Nuclear power is clean and has been proven safe. Expansion will demand a solution for the nuclear waste disposal problem. What ideas are being discussed in this area?

Sir Nicholas, Indur Goklany calculates -- on the basis of your own numbers -- that people in "developing countries" will be wealthier in 2100 than people in "rich countries" are today, even under the most fuel intensive emission scenario. Meanwhile, we know that, barring an unforeseen technological revolition, taking drastic action to cut emissions in the next decade or two will have very substantial economic costs -- harming the ability especially of people in poor countries to deal with the problems they currently face, such as diarrhoea, malaria and other diseases that cause suffering to hundreds of millions of people and lead to many millions of premature deaths. Should we really be asking the poor to pay now -- often with their lives -- in order that the wealthy elite can feel morally righteous that they have enabled the poor in the future to be slightly wealthier?

I would like to ask Sir Nick about the rumours I've heard and seen in the sky re the planes that are spewing out chemicals.... barium and aluminium etc. every day...making trails and XXX's in the air??... I've been told that they are warming up the climate and controlling the weather?....are we all being hoodwinked??...I would really like an answer to this question...also I do believe in conservation and recycling etc.

I have one question:

Does Mr. Stern really believe that we can prevent climate change while corporate capitalism is the dominant ideology in our world and powerful business interests have such a control over governmental policy?

Please ask Sir Nicholas under what regime of logic does the Consequent occur before the Antecedent and then to relate this to the historical record of rising temperatures and rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

From reading other comments I see many are confused still about what is causing Climate Change. We may be contributing a little to it but not a fraction of what nature is doing all by itself. If we cut back at this stage we will never develop means of survivng
into the future. There is no way man can make any difference given where we are in terms of controlling global weather systems.

In the fifteen years or so since this problem was brought to the world's attention at Kyoto what detailed plans have the environmentalists come up with to deal with the problem specifically explaining what each and every nation is to do, what sacrifice it will make, to which industry, how it will be monitored, and how confident are they that these plans will be accepted by everyone? You don't have such a plan? What have you been doing, just wasting your time making speeches? The Governator of California can make all the speeches he wants to wild applause and they can march up and down in parades celebrating him but when Californians see what trying to impliment his plans are costing them, especially if others are not feeling equal pain of sacrifice, his whole program will be thrown in the trash like so much unwanted garbage. If you want action, you'd better come up with a much better action plan than just target numbers, you'd better figure out exactly how societies will meet those targets or you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of selling it to the world. Platitudes and warnings alone are worthless.

HOW does Sir Nicholas Stern propose to change the planet's natural cycles?
The Earth has warmed and cooled many times. Other planets are at the moment warming too, I haven't heard of many 4x4's on Mars!
The Sun, cosmic radiations and the Earth's magnetic fields are responsible for the changes in climate. Man made global warming theory is just that THEORY! And a half-baked theory at that promulgated by those with vested interests in more funding for their "reports" and Governments who wish to TAX us back to the Stone Age. HUMBUG!

Given most would like clean renewable electricity generation what did what did Sir Nicholas discover as being the great impediment to the most logical form of clean renewable energy to wit Geothermal energy?

The oil industry is very well versed in deep drilling, so what's the problem ?

If a Manhattan like project were mounted to harness this abundant energy source, it would be unseen, clean and last for the life of this planet. wf

How about

As ‘U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Declined 1.5 Percent in 2006’ and America did not ratified Kyoto, where as the countries that did ratify Kyoto have seen a rise in Greenhouse gas emissions - what is the point of the Kyoto treaty and the forthcoming Bali one.

Figures from U.S. Department of Energy, 28 Nov 2007

Paleoanthropolgy

If , as the paleoanthropologists suggest , we all originally fled Africa in search of green and pleasant pastures new , what would Sir Nick say to a cross-party agreement in the still vaguely influential west to introduce needs-related fuel rationing - eg no more ´óÏó´«Ã½ helicopters - before we create a replica arid landscape here but with nowhere else nice to go ?

The Stern Report was excellent for its projected figures and targets. There is a figure I wish to know because I consider it to be an important target. Many British people remain deeply sceptical about global warming and its likely effect on civilisation as we know it. They include: congential doubters, sceptics, nay-sayers, cynics, conspiracy theorists, people who rejoice in chaos, and those who studiously avoid letting facts get in the way of their opinions. What proportion of the British population must be actively involved in being part of the solution. (The 'politician' response would be: the more the better. Please do not accept this as an answer. It is a figure I am after, not a glib response.)

The science on climate change indicates the opposite of the hysterical warnings politicians and media are making such a hysterical fanfare about.

Ask him if he has seen the lecture that Australian research professor Bob Carter recently gave.

If not I believe Jeremy should take the trouble to watch it before the interview. It is very short and very simple.

I would like three questions raised:

1)Where are the graphs that show that CO2 in general and human produced CO2 in particular is the/a controlling variable that changes the direction of global warming/cooling. For this I want to see a graph that shows the turning points on it led by an increase in CO2. What was goimng on in or around 1000AD when the CO2 rose similarly to now? Was jousting environmentally harmful? The answer is the backbone of all environmental tax raising worldwide.
2)If we keep nuclear. Where are and what are the worlds supplies? Can we rely on them? Or may we get outbid by China?
3) The new LNG pipe line just came past us. Great engineering, but again what if we fall out with Russia or the suppliers choose a more lucrative China or India to sell to?

There are scientific doubts as for the reasons of the climate change , i.e if it is man made or a result of cosmological conditions. I would like Mr Stern to be asked to elaborate on the scientific context that consists the basis of his conclusions

The Stern report has one major critical shortfall; it is full of expert reductionist analysis with no synthesis.

Lovelock identifies this as representing the cultural difficulty in the way science is organised. Kuhn would also have had something to say.

The recent IPCC synthesis of the Fourth Assessment Report is semantically misleading; the term synthesis being used to convey a synopsis rather than synthesis.

Analysis creates knowledge of the what, where, when etc whilst synthesis creates understanding, the WHY.

Analysis has little meaning in a complex or chaotic system; until the science learns how to embrace the complexity we will continue to be subject to rhetorical advocacy, with uncertainty and misunderstanding.

The question must be; where is the synthesis and why isn’t it in his report?

My name sake Mr Bean may be used to creating chaos out of order, however, the real Mr BEAN is interested in the creation of understanding out of chaos and complexity.

Given that political units are not likely to sacrifice themselves to undertake what will be the enormously unpopular and ruinous changes to commerce and BAU, Does Sir Nicholas feel, like myself, that no political unit will take sufficiently large strides themselves which will cause themselves to loose in democratic elections.
Could Sir Nicholas therefore create a board which would be able to censure governing and opposition parties for non-cooperation and seeking political advantage?

Does Sir Nicholas share my pessimism, that I cannot see at present, any possibility within any states governance, to have the foresight to recognise, or the ability to instigate the necessary change?

Does Sir Nicholas feel that in fact the situation is far worse and that he is 'diluting' his message to make it initially more palatable?

Does Sir Nicholas accept that the current economic system is honed' like a thoroughbred, to race on the flat, in good conditions, does he, like myself, worry that its evolution into a machine which enables maximum return to be sought, mean that it has lost its robustness to perform at all in adverse conditions? Does he worry that many independant localised systems of trade have all been absorbed into the behemothic global system of 'needing' maximum profits immediately, and that if the global system were to fail due to climatic change/resource depletion effects, there would be less trading methods to fall back on (eggs in one basket, a basket that that only works in fair weather).

HOW does Sir Nicholas Stern propose to change the planet's natural cycles?
The Earth has warmed and cooled many times. Other planets are at the moment warming too, I haven't heard of many 4x4's on Mars!
The Sun, cosmic radiations and the Earth's magnetic fields are responsible for the changes in climate. Man made global warming theory is just that THEORY! And a half-baked theory at that promulgated by those with vested interests in more funding for their "reports" and Governments who wish to TAX us back to the Stone Age. HUMBUG!

Wondering ..

Just how many ´óÏó´«Ã½ Staff will be on the lovely Bali assignment standing in front of the centre each reporting a few soundbites in the name of planting a shrub...

How soon the world's most industrialised countries regulate to basic minmimum the quantity of greenhouse gases?
The rapid rate in industrialisation remains the main single cause of these emmisions?

Ban Blaise
Bambili-Cameroon

Governments and companies change when they are measured and have to report their performance. They change if there is a direct benefit or loss from performance failure. My question is, what metrics should companies and governments immediately start to report? Then: What *simple* legislated changes would be needed to make a link between those metrics and create financial value so this reporting internalises unpriced externalities.

NB: My belief is that GHG emissions are only a small part of the issue: they cause heat to be trapped. Metrics need to include items that increase heating: heating the environment is free but at high cost. There are 200m cars in the continental USA and they all have radiators: if that doesn't contribute, I don't know what does. Global heaters are not being measured, we need new metrics.

A few of these comments obviously neglect the fact the Nick Stern is an economist. All he is telling us is how climate change will affect us economically- all these people who are trying to deny it is happening might like to take it on board how MUCH IT IS GOING TO COST, as they don't seem to bothered about the environmental aspect.

I would like to know how disproportionately climate change will affect those less well off, if it will at all. Or will it roughly affect all individuals the same?

Would you please ask Sir Nicholas how, under our present economic system of global capitalism, can there ever be any kind of slow down or control of industrial development which might effect global warming ?

Beyond recycling, and energy conservation, how can people who feel strongly about the need to act faster, than will probably occur, do to make a difference, given that the incumbant party political systems are not already able to channel through the people who might be able to make a difference?

To be more blatent, if you think you have something to offer, how can you get an 'in' without going through the time consuming pantomime of getting into a position of political power.

What does he think of George Monbiot's report that the government is holding back on carbon cut targets because they fear loosing the support of the CBI?

we need to save the world NOW before its to late

Can Sir Nicholas explain how the last Ice Age came to termination - without any assistance from mankind?

We should be led by example. Why if things are as serious as is being suggested, should the Royals be reducing the amount of palaces they inhabit at certain times. Should not individual air travel be made illegal. There are so many things that the privileged and wealthy do without question. We of the proletariat are told to have reduced heating and lighting. Don't make me laugh

In view of your findings, do you think Britain's Governments should be investing far more than they have done to date in electrified railways? - given that only 39% of the present UK network is electrified, with no plans for significant expansion.

Why not put a per barrel tax on refineries?

The advantages, including simplified regulation due to the fact that refineries are relatively few in number and are huge, are clear.

The proceeds could "fuel" deployment of, and related research on, alternative energy source infrastructures and also support scientific research how much climate change is likely and the conseqences thereof. Similar taxes could be added to the transport of coal and natural gas. In the case of coal, the tax could be bigger per unit of fossil fuel energy (because of other environmental damage per unit of energy obtained), while the tax on natural gas could be less (because of less environmental damage per unit of energy obtained).

Could you ask Sir Nicholas how he has fallen for all this rubbish talk about global warming? It seems the more educated one is,the more serious people take these false claims. It is a con trick of huge implications,with ruthless people and governments pulling in a lot of money at the expence of hard working people who cannot afford this extra expence and uneccessary change in lifestyle. God is in charge of this planet and the natural and man made events are the result of the evil that man is doing in this world. Regards. Education is not WISDOM.

Global warming seems the least obvious way humanity impacts the environment, nevertheless I accept that it is probably real and it may be a problem. All environmental impacts scale proportional to human population. Population growth is high where women are not well treated. Does Stern see any costs or benefits in taking action to change oppressive religious and cultural practices that keep women in the kitchen, bare-foot and pregnant?

86.David Dietrich wrote:
Why not put a per barrel tax on refineries?

Taxing people into bankrupcy with the idea of re-engineering society in mind is what Europe does best. Sure, Europeans don't pay nearly enough for fossil fuels, they can still drive their cars, fly in airplanes, and heat their homes. Until they are forced to give up these frivolities, they aren't paying enough for fuel so taxes should be raised to put a stop to it. Now what exactly do people think a 60% to 80% cut in CO2 output means, just more and bigger wind farms? Hello!

Could it be that you envy the advanced nations of the world so therefor you invent problems which no one believes you have failed - byeee

I concur with those who see reductionism at the root of CCT and a contradiction between the expressed purpose of CCT and the mo of capitalism.

The goals of CCT are political and economic - to create a globile hi-consuming elite and a localised non-consuming proletariat - the new world peasantry.

the focus of environmentalism has steered away from those founding elements that could lead society away from reductionism - such as a fuller understanding of the science of organic agriculture

As finance experts are unable to predict the financial markets two weeks hence and weather expert unable to predict the weather two weeks hence and scientists unable to reliably predict future technologies perhaps you could ask him how he managed to combined these huge uncertainties (defying the laws of maths) to give the absurd certainty of 5% or more loss of GDP predictions.

Perhaps he could demonstrate his talants by predicting ten throws of a dice as this is clearly this has far fewer uncertainies and is much easier for him to predict.

Also why does his document read like a religious text appealing soley to emotions rather that a serious scientific or economic analysis.

P Haynes

As finance experts are unable to predict the financial markets two weeks hence and weather expert unable to predict the weather two weeks hence and scientists unable to reliably predict future technologies perhaps you could ask him how he managed to combined (or solve) these huge uncertainties (defying the laws of maths) to give the absurd certainty of 5% or more loss of GDP predictions.

Perhaps he could demonstrate his talants by predicting ten throws of a dice as this is clearly this has far fewer uncertainies and is much easier for him to predict.

Also why does his document read like a religious text appealing soley to emotions rather that a serious scientific or economic analysis.

P Haynes

Question to Stern : Economics is a less than exact science, with a mixed record of successful prediction ? Further, Climate Science is itself an infant science highly dependent upon the complex modeling of variables and interactions about which science has only limited understanding. How then on the basis of such obvious multiple uncertainties and with no significant track record of prediction accuracy, can you so confidently lead demands for hugely expensive and highly disruptive change in behavior.

QUESTIONS:

What is the BOTTOM LINE on Climate Change? And, if we truly want to handle the problem, isn't the wise thing to do to address the fundamental cause, get to the heart of it? So, what is that Cause? Many factors no doubt add to it and weigh in, but what is THE CAUSE? Not only of climate change but of nearly ALL other problems mankind faces now?

Biologically, humans are animals and, as animals, we respond in ways similar to other animals to similar stimuli. Study what happens with and to animals, any species, when their numbers outpace the environment's capacity to sustain them. Famine, disease & pestilence, wars, cannibalism, various forms of insanities. Where is the Family of Man today?

What will it take for us to realize that Earth is dying and the killers IS US--our numbers, our excesses, our disregard for the obvious.

Unless we use the old and proven methods of birth control in a two-prongued approach to lower our birthrates, when we get to where we're going we won't like it there!
A. Cristina

That statistical models have any value whatsoever - given that what is put into the model is simply someone's 'opinion' regardless of how complex the stats are - is one of the founding myths of our society. It is ironic that in this age of so-called postmodernism that numbers have come to substitute for intellectual thought and/ or hermeneutic understanding.

As European (White) populations are now in negative growth (below replacement level TFRs have been the case in EU states since the 1960s, and all are below 2.1), the building and planning has surely got to be for the present and projected influx of immigrants and their progeny (Frattini wants 20 million from Africa & S Asia to make up the shortfall).

With all thse catastrophes, we risk taking our eyes of the Lisbon Treaty don't we? As there won't be enough indigenous Europeans to run services for the ageing population in the future more and more of the cars and electrical goods, buildings, services etc will be for the progeny of immigrants from Africa and S Asia which, from the scientific evidence (and James Watson was just accurately citing it), are ON AVERAGE not very bright (see Lynn & VanHanen's work).

So, given the very high positive correlation between mean IQ and GDP internationally, and the high negative correlation between TFR and IQ, in the future, there are likely to be even more 'stupid' people running Europe, and I don't think many of them are likely to be very aware of their 'carbon footprints' or much.

Mr Stern, like Mr Sachs doesn't paint the full picture, they just make the literate (higher IQ) few even more scared to have kids. Are they conspiring to get rid of their competition?

It's best to leave the Americans out of this as demograohicakky they've been nobbled by immigration and dysgenic/differential fertility even worse than the UK/Europe.

Stern, as one of many ex 'World Bank' advisors (like Sachs) are not scientists, bur very well connected money men, who, like Human Rights lawyers, seem to be startingly good at riding the waves, spinning good yarbs and taking all the credit.

But looked at more critically, what do they really have to say? Look at what happened to Sach's 'shock therapist' associates recently:

The critically important variables are ideologically inconvenient for free-marketeers, and so are classed 'politically incorrect' - which effectively stops people from considering them (the IQ and race/sex literature is effectively censored). Factoring genes, IQs and TFRs into their econometric models of how markets work is not de rigueur, especially if one is one of the ubiquitous 'hands off', free-market type of anarchists/economists.

But these variables ARE important. They should be raised with Sir Nick or others, as genetically determined low educability in literacy and numeracy will mean an ever growing population which is immune to climate change (and other) scaremongering reports whether they have any scientific merit or not. These reports appear to target the wrong people, unless the idea is to frighten the educable into having less children and thereby reduce the competition for their nominal 'authors'.

It's not climate change (global warming), it's dysgenesis (global dimming) that's the major problem. That, and the over-confidence of all of those who are so sure that global warming rather than global dimming (in the IQ sense) is anthropogenic.

The UK *did* in fact participate in 2003 (which focused on maths). Controversially, it was EXCLUDED from the detailed comparative analyses by the OECD's PISA governing body, because of its concerns about dodgy sampling of UK pupils.

Interested readers should look up DfES commissioned independent reports which were explicit about the lack of full cooperation that they received. Whilst the government was singing the praises of onward and upwards in key Stage 3 & 4 attainment, the PISA comparisons risk revealing the facts of the matter, i.e. dysgenesis through immigration and differential fertility.

In passing, what happened to the interview?

All growth is eventually limited by physical or biological restraints. Human civilisation and inventiveness has put off these limitations on human population numbers and activities. Not for all time but merely delayed. These upper limits for industrial activity and populations numbers are now being reached at an exponential speed.

Sir Nicholas with your best will any reduction in the production of GHGs will be outstripped by population growth. Shouldn’t you direct your attention to population control?

"Tonight Newsnight has an exclusive interview with Sir Nicholas Stern."

Did this interview actually take place as planned on 29th? I had drawn attention of colleagues and friends to the planned interview and then sat down to watch the programme. Apparently this issue of the long term future of humanity and the planet was totally displaced by: first, an extended report and study panel discussion about a local storm (in a tea cup?) about a businessman who had chosen to keep his identify out of the media by using intermediaries to make donation totalling a few hundred thousand pounds to the UK Labour Party;
second, a story about a teacher who had unwisely named a teddy bear after one of her pupils; and third, a report fro Canary Wharf on a small fall in UK housing prices.

What hope is there then for seriously addressing issues of mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change reviewed so effectively by Nick Stern and his team, if reports and interviews such as that planned for 29th November are crowded out by a temporary local political difficulties?

Perhaps the interview will be shown on another evening?

Thanks for the link Ed. It crossed my mind too.

In my view, economic predators have done very well for themselves and their masters over the years through a combination of a) rising numbers in the sub-prime sector in both developed and developing markets, b) massive de-regulation, and most of all c) an cynical appreciation of how the 'hyperbolic discounting function' can be mined to their advantage at others' expense.

Test

What would be the impact of immediately outlawing the consumption of meat globally?
What would be the impact of outlawing corporate and personal jets globally?
How can the wealthiest 1% of the world (entertainers and celebrities, primarily) shoulder the burden first through sacrifice?

Come on Newsnight spill the beans... Where is the Stern concern? Was it buried under bad news?
The truth is out there somewhere; meanwhile it's looking like decent folk are heading for the biggest tax fraud in the history of the world. If Stern is wrong can we get our money back?? Will Al Darling indemnify us??

Climate politicians and internationalists argue that one of dire consequences of climate change is Third World War.I think if this War really happens then it will be unlike the past warsthe crucial war for supreme control of global resources at the cost of small nations! Do you agree ?

I don't want to start multiple posting... but with respect to a 3rd world war I don't think that it will be because of climate change. I cannot see how melting polar ice and releasing it into the system can lead to less water in existing arid areas. Archeology tells us that currently arid areas were previously 'moist'. Were they wet because there was less free water in the system due to larger ice caps? Nah....

Sir Nicholas Stern says a lot about the gloom and doom that will happen if drastic emission reductions are not implemented.

However, he does not say anything about (a) WHEN expected climate improvements are likely to occur if reductions are implemented and (b) WHAT LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE does he attach to such forecasts if any.

I would like to add this addendum to post 95 :
Example of Greenhouse Gas Model Prediction unreliability. Study published by the International Journal of Climatology reported that observed patterns of surface and atmosphere temperature change over the last 30 years, disagree with Greenhouse model predictions. Quote "Greenhouse Models greatly over-estimate the actual effects of greenhouse gases"

I believe if anyone is too consider the real consequences and make a voiced effort we need a daily brodcast system like the local weather on my scanner BUT too inform us of previous 3-5 years daily and consider an estimated prediction. I believe that in the next 3-5 years our world climate is going too shift so drematically that there will be very little winters as before and most of the world will burn up.Hope you will find some way of improving our climate crisis!

Lawson and other Lords vs Stern and co, and why do so many of Blair's report 'authors' (write them all by themselevs do they?) seem to be Jewish when Jews are under 0.5% of the UK population?

/blogs/newsnight/2007/12/friday_14_december_2007.html

These are some of the reasons why a lot of people are still sceptical about "man made climate change."
1. Because most of the scientific grants are going to those who study man made climate change. You can not get money to prove the opposite. And if you dare to question the new mantra you are ridiculed.
2. Can anyone remember the EU all agreeing on a single policy? They can not agree a Common Agriculteral Policy. However, they are willing to ban cheap third world light bulbs, in favour of expensive EU green bulbs. With 400 million customers in the EU we should not be surprised.
3. Most of the climate change forcasts are based on computer models. These are the same type of model that cannot predict the weather for more than a few months. And it is the same kind of modeles that have hel to cause a catastrophie in the money markets.
4. The saddest part: is that a lot of poor people around the world are going to loose out, as the green facists start nagging about food miles.
However, the most sinister aspect of this deabte, is notion about controlling the world population. People are starting to be seen as potential poluters not as people. This is very dangerous.
Merry Xamas