Economics for the future

The great American mechanical engineer Frederick W. Taylor once said “It’s easier to make a reporter into an economist than an economist into a reporter.” I must confess I’ve often sympathised with this view; I’ve often found it rather hard on the grey matter to follow the reasoning of some economists. I can see they have a series of logical arguments but getting my head round all of it in one go is often a challenge. On the 12 March I was fortunate to find a seat in a packed lecture at the University of Exeter where economist Professor Lord Stern of Brentford spoke on getting a global deal on climate change. This was not a dry, hard-to-follow monologue on the minutiae of economic theory. Instead, Lord Stern gave a lucid and convincing talk on the challenges we face in minimising the the risks of significant climate change. The economics were there but it was refreshingly understandable.

Lord Stern is arguably best known for heading up what is known as the Stern Review; published by the UK Government in 2006, this 700 page landmark piece of work made the economic case that it was cheaper to tackle climate change now rather than do nothing. Now the IG Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, Stern addressed the wider issue of how to deal with climate change. He stressed that the problems we face with climate change are a result of the greatest market failure of all: the environmental damage associated with using fossil fuels is not included in the price we pay. The problem is now how to address this. Although any country could instigate a policy that would fully cost the damage, it won’t have bite unless the majority are onboard. Ultimately, the atmosphere doesn’t care where the gases come from; extra gases being dumped in the atmosphere by free-riders means more warming for everyone regardless of who put it there. There needs to be a global agreement to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, polarised views are threatening to stymie progress.

For a global deal to stick, Stern identified three criteria that have to be met:

    * the deal has to be effective, meaning a cut of at least 50% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (although science has moved forward since Stern’s review was released — with many scientists stating we need to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050, or even zero)
    * the deal has to keep the costs of emission cuts low; and
    * the deal also has to be equable, which in practice means rich countries have to take the lead.

Solar panels in Algeria
The shenanigans at Bali showed just how much work still needs to be done. Yet rich countries have to lead and there’s enough of a groundswell in public support for action that our governments are starting to feel impelled to act, albeit slowly. Contrast the massive proposed cuts of greenhouse gases by all Democratic and Republican candidates for US President with the current incumbent in the White House; this is for a nation that currently produces around a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. Although it would be fantastic if the USA and other developed nations were to commit to a rapid decarbonisation of its economy, the technology has to be deployed. The time element has often been used as an excuse for delaying action but the beautiful thing is a lot of the technology has been developed and the time it takes isn’t as long as you might think; some parts of Germany are using wind to generate half their electricity from nothing in just 5 years — the result of sensible policy mechanisms that incentivise the uptake of renewables. If the political will becomes a reality, opportunities abound to make a serious dent in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. As Stern has shown, for just a one-off investment of 1-2% Gross Domestic Product (often abbreviated to GDP), a large enough investment can be made to reduce our dependence on carbon and significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change.


We’ve got the technology and can afford it. Climate has changed. Let’s get on with the job and fix it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Tropics and the Furious Fifties

Image
There’s an old sailor’s expression: “Below 40 degrees south there is no law, below 50 degrees south there is no God.” Since the sixteenth century, sailors have spoken in awe of the violent westerly winds and seas they experienced fighting their way across the Southern Ocean. With few landmasses to slow them down, the winds found across 40 degrees latitude often reach speeds of twenty-five knots—about 40 percent stronger than their northern hemisphere counterparts—earning them the title the “roaring forties.” As shipping pushed farther south, explorers realized that these winds form part of a vast storm belt that includes the “furious fifties” and “screaming sixties,” names more reminiscent of terrible rock bands than a major part of our planet’s circulation system. The early hunters and traders didn’t understand it at the time, but these winds are created by a procession of low-pressure systems carried east by the jet stream, a river of cold air hurtling and twisting round the Antarct
Read more

Sydney declares a climate emergency – what does that mean in practice?

Sydney declares a climate emergency – what does that mean in practice? Chris Turney , UNSW Late on Monday night, the City of Sydney became the second state capital in Australia (after Hobart a week earlier ) to officially declare a climate emergency . With climate change considered a threat to human life, Sydney councillors unanimously supported a motion put forward by Lord Mayor Clover Moore to mobilise city resources to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the impact of future change. The decision sees Sydney join a variety of local and national governments around the world, in a movement that is increasingly gaining momentum . In total, some 658 local governments around the world have made the same declaration, with the UK and Canada committing their national governments to the global movement in just the past two months . An official declaration of climate emergency puts a government on a “wartime mobilisation” that places climate change at the centre of policy and plannin
Read more

Death of a colony

Image
Cape Denison holds a special place in the history of Antarctic exploration. A small outcrop of rocks on the remote East Antarctic coastline, Cape Denison is forever associated with one of the most spectacular and often forgotten tales of survival. A century ago it was the main base of operations for one of the great explorers of the south: the Australian scientist Sir Douglas Mawson . Privately funded, three bases and one research ship supported a science team that explored a region the size of the United States between 1911 and 1914. Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition, however, suffered terribly during their time at Cape Denison: a sudden turn of events led to tragedy on the ice, the death of two men, allegations of cannibalism and with the return of winter sea ice, an extended stay in Antarctica. But when they first came upon Cape Denison, Mawson was ecstatic. Greeted by squawking penguins: ‘ We were soon inside a beautiful, miniature harbour completely land-locked. The su
Read more