WAFIA

Takes me back to the boat festival at Airlie

 I think they may have topped our efforts though…

http://missbondi.aquabumps.com/rotto-raftup-2006/index.html

Stern Report: Postscript

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3DD/35/Postscript.pdf

This is the postscript to the Stern Review, effectively a reponse to some of the criticism aimed at the report and in particular, its recommendations.  I’ve always thought that a great way to skim a subject/argument is to read somone’s criticism of it, and this is no different.  The majority of science and economics reports, for example, rest on a few key assumptions or findings that the underpin the remainder of the anlaysis- this is no different.  There’s a bit of a discussion going on over at Quiggin’s blog that I have checked out in the past.  Haven’t checked his comments to Stern’s response yet- will offer a few thoughts of my own before doing so.  Most of what follows is also a brief summary of what the report actually said, for those who didn’t want to read the full thing (like me).

What i think in a few lines:

     Scientific point of view – Can’t comment on to any great degree, I just don’t kow the arguments well enough each way.  Stern report offers two main conclusions: 

a)  Carbon emissions are responsible for increases in temperature, and suggest that the current trebling of C02 emissions (approx 850 ppm) could contribute to a rise in temperature of 5 degrees C; and

b) A rise in temperature is associated with increasing severity of natural disasters, including hurricanes etc.  The report notes that this severity is operating on a convex path also; i.e. as the marginal temperature rises, the environmental severity caused increases by a greater magnitude each time.  What’s more, at a certain point, these impacts are irreversible (read: we’re fucked).

I don’t know enough about the science to doubt it or agree with it each way, so I’m not even going to try. I notice that the weight of global warming proponents seem to be increasing, and the denialists are either fading into obscurity, or in some cases, switching sides. (http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/01/15/exxon-joins-the-real-world/) I notice that the debate seems to be directed toward the scale of damge that is being done, and not whether or not there is in fact any degradation occurring.  This, and I liked an inconvenient truth

     Time preference – This is the use of a discount rate to value the benefits that accrue to future generations versus the benefits that accrue to us now.  Stern originally used a pure time discount rate of 0, which effectively meant the welfare of future generations is valued equally to the welfare of people today. The choice of discounting rate is used to effectively determine how much of our wealth (i.e. GDP) should we give up now to preserve the earth for future generations.  A higher discount rate would imply we value the future generations less, and thus less should be sacrificed now for their future benefit.  Choice of dicsount rate is an ethical decision and a subjective one at that.  Valuing the wealth of future generations is a no brainer (example:  bequeathing to children demonstartes this inherent value), but how much??  Stern has provided a sensitivity analysis which was lacking in the original report. This is smart, because it allows the reader to view a range of discount values and their implications for GDP.

I don’t understand discounting as well as I’d like to, so I’ll reserve any technical comments.  I don’t think we should value future generations the same as our own, because future generations will in essence be wealthier than us.  Having said that, there needs to be balance – we should be leaving the world the way we found it and reduce our inprint on it.  Again have no idea what the answer is. 

Emissions trading as a remedy – allowing carbon limits effectively.  I don’t know about this, as it prevents the developing countries of the world from catching up to the more developed countries in a sense.  Put it this way – the developed world is the way it is because of producitivity – investment, industrialisation and innovation working together.  What powers this??   Coal in the majority of the cases, which provides for factories, electricity etc etc etc…  These countries couldn’t get to where they are without industrialising and producing mass C02 emissions. 

Is it the world’s place to tell these countries they can’t develop in the same way as the rest?  There’s no other way to become a developed nation as it stands right now, because fossil fuels and the like are a countries batteries, their path to becoming rich.  To impose a restriction on them is hypocritical.  A more equitable remedy would be the allowance for emission at the expense of the developed world, but I hardly think the US will endorse that.  Maybe an emissions trading regime that allows the US to buy emissions from  developing nations, but that wouldn’t foster the development of the developing nations….

Rant over