The Stern Review - Is It Time Too Listen?

Question

Hey Fans
So, the Stern report has finally come out. For those who havn't heard, this was a report written for the British government by Lord Stern, the former Chielf Economist of the World Bank. He describes the economic costs of tackling the problem now, resulting in a possible swallowing up of 1% of the worlds GDP, and talks about 'dramatic, far-reaching' consequences, well in the range of of a 20% global drop in GDP, akin to another Depression.

So guys, whats your opinions? Does Stern argue the case effectively in your mind? Do you think its time the likes of China, India, America, Australia and the EU played there part and created a global pact, which has the teeth needed to enforce it?

NB
Hey guiys, some excellent answers so far, i havn't much time to post so ill just answer Beachbums question first :)
Firstly, thank you for the response and question! My stance on the Stern report is that people have got to sit up and listen. Lord Stern isn't some 'wishy-washy Liberal' that the Right-wing can ignore, he was the World Banks chief economist. The man knows his stuff, and alos has no Political Bias. I would personally rather see taxes go up and more laws introduced now, then have to live through the horrors of another Great Depression

Answer 1

Many of us have been aware of this for some time, and we do need to slow down.

In addition to the fact that Western Governments, some more than others, consume far more than they need to, we now oil the wheels of the gloom laden down hill truck to disaster, by inspiring other emerging economies, China and India, as perfect examples, to be as greedy as we were/are, showing them the Western good life, while covering over the underbelly of thre looming disaster.

The world was based on family, one parent working, with needs, as opposed to industry imposed wants, one car, holidays in the country, by boat, train, bus or bike, and not 60 million cars guzzeling every drop of resource because some countries are brought up on the 'fat McDonads drive, as oppoed to the fitter in body and environment walk'.

We are out using the original design, allowing our immense greed for the now, sod you and the after, leaving people 100 years from now, if not sooner, in a real mess, without resources. We really must return to basics, the good simple life, as was designed for us, forget this greed. Take a walk around your house, locate the 'I needed and the I wanted' items, now decide which ones you can live without.

The needs we have allow all needs to be satisfied, but the want, the American dream, for example, now a global nightmare, is destroying the planet, making useless things that we don't need. The enemy, if you need one, are those who kill the environment, not your neighbour, perhaps who has different beliefs, and you will note, go have a look, those who inspire hatred betwen people, as opposed to the collective hatred of the 'useless item makers' are the 'item makers' themselves, backed by Government, and newspapers, who ive on advertising money.

They are the ultimate greedy types, caring little for you today or anyone else tomorrow, filling your eyes up with some seeming need for all their crap. Without these needs, we need no crap, and without all the crap, there is less usage of spartan resources, and thus less of a problem.

So, when you feel you 'need' to buy it, wait, is this need or want, and if ts the latter, then resist it.

Answer 2

Good question. The Stern Review is EXACTLY the same as the reviews that were given to ALL governments years ago. They were ignored then. TB & GB just want a crusade at the moment. But I do agree something is to be done. There are some problems, however: The sience does not state that humans are to blame. In fact, there is much debate about this. Then there is the old we cannot force other countries to act. The States have refused point blank.
I sadly believe that the Stern Report is probably (ironically) going to be a waste of paper resources. It is in human nature to destroy ourselves.
Regards xxB

Answer 3

The Stern report is nonsense based on junk science. There is no scientific consensus that global warming exists, and even adherents of the theory can not agree on the causes.

The temperature of the earth fluctuates over time, in some circumstances extremely rapidly. In Roman times, wine was produced as far north as York, and the Medieval Climate Optimum (the high point of British average temperatures) was followed by relatively rapid declines in average temperatures when viewed in isolation. This is why Stern used the years 1750-1850 as the baseline in his report: it was the coldest century on record, hence ensuring the largest possible predicted increases.

The problem is that governments are trying to draw statistical conclusions with around 300 years of roughly accurate data, and then apply it to something which can only be measured on a geological scale. Clearly, this is nonsense, and at best a misunderstanding of how averages and statistics work. The point of an average is that sometimes you have a string of values above the average, and sometimes below: that is how you work out an average! To suggest a small run of above average temperatures is indicative of global warming is clearly statistical nonsense. To tax us all to death on the basis of it is, well, what you expect of government.

Let me draw another conclusion, borrowed from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since 1850, the number of pirates on the high seas has been in steady decline. Also since 1850, it is claimed that average temperatures have steadily increased. To use Stern's basic premise, this is a clear indication that the statistical correlation is causal, and we should immediately begin re-introducing pirates in order to combat global warming.

Clean air, a bette use of natural resources and an end to wastefulness are all good in their own right, and ends worth pursuing. Manufacturing scare stories out of statistics is not the way to achieve them.

Answer 4

Gorden Brown thinks so or at least he can see a way to TAX until the pips squeak. never mind the quality feel the width, But under the Gaia theory the tipping point will come sooner then we can plan for 10s of years not 100s and when it does no amount of money will save us

Answer 5

Very good question and I will have to research it a bit to give you an adequate answer... meaning edit back later.

As far as what you stated in the description thus far, that all depends on whether or not globalization is beneficial to your country or not. I, personally, think it isn't.

Btw, I was planning to ask a similar question on this if you would like to give an opinion. (Glad you reminded me)

Answer 6

Stern is an economist who thinks like an economist, and in my experience economists are the dumbest people on earth, who know absolutely nothing about anything, except money.

I am sick to the back teeth of opportunist politicians jumping on the band-wagon of "global warming" and then declaring their intention to "save the planet", when their only concern is to save themselves from defeat at the polls.

I simply cannot take these people seriously, because they are not engineers, plumbers, scientists or thinkers; just overgrown office-boys (and girls) with inflated egos.

I look forward to the day when someone stands up to instigate a bit of primary-thinking.

"If" (and it's a big "if") there is a pollution problem caused by vehicles, then governments are one of the biggest causes of it. Only an economist and an accountant could come up with a system of centralised services, where "public money" is used in the most efficient way. Thus, we have central job-centres, large area schools, area hospitals, centralised council offices, regional centres for this and that, centralised social-services,nursing, day care, educational supplies....and the list goes on and on.

The end result is that whilst "public-money" is used to effect "economies of scale" and help reduce the tax-burden, each and every person within a regional area, are forced to travel by car, bus or train, at considerable expense. Everyone who works for these organisations has to travel there and back also.

The end result is a nightmare on the roads, with everyone coming and going to wherever they are forced to come and go, and at enormous expense which almost certainly exceeds the tax-burden of less centralised services and public amenities.

Let's look at something very simple to illustrate a point....a local Post Office.

What does it cost to run a Post Office in a large village?

Let's suggest about £2,000 per week in costs, less whatever profits they make. The exact figure doesn't matter, but the nett loss is certainly not going to exceed £1,000 per week, and may be considerably less.

If the average distance from the homes of local residents to the post office is about 1.5 miles, and they drop in there once a week or so, that means that perhaps 1,500 people of working age are travelling 4,500 per week.

At an average urban fuel consumption of 20mpg, that means that those people are shelling out 205 gallons of fuel per week, at about £4.20 per gallon. In other words, about £860 per week; most of which goes to the government in fuel tax.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the TRUE cost of motoring is actually rather more than just the cost of fuel, but let's stick to that for the sake of argument.

Now along comes some bright little bugger with a clipboard, and he says, "This Post Office is losing money. We must close it and have a town centre Post Office."

So the villagers climb into their 4 X 4's, and instead of travelling 3 miles to and from home to the Post Office, they have to travel at least 6 miles to the nearest town and back; immediately quadrupling their outgoings, which would now be £3,440.

Of course this is a very simple economic model, because people don't just drive to the Post Office and back without doing other things, but as a general principle, it is perfectly obvious that centralisation of shops and services, unless people live in the middle of cities and large towns, actually costs more money than it is worth in tax-savings.

Consequently, when it comes to pollutants and the traffic environment on our crowded roads, the government and their "thinkers" are possibly one of, if not THE worst offenders.

Of course, knowing what the English are like, there is one absolutely radical solution to all the problems associated with traffic congenstion and pollution. The English like their gardens for some obscure reason, so were I to be a politician, I would press for very high-taxes on gardens, but give enormous reverse tax-credits to those who fit window boxes in town centres.

Their would be an immediate flood of people back into the town and city-centres, and of course, the world would be a prettier place.

If people want to know what that would be like, let them go to Rotterdam, where there are very few traffic problems during the rush hour; largely due to the fact that most people live IN the city, grow pretty flowers in window boxes and where the streets are swept clean everyday.

Life doesn't HAVE to be complicated.

Answer 7

The BBC is so cool.

Answer 8

defiantly agree with you.

Answer 9

The question is ........will GWB listen?