Posted on 06/05/2008 7:43:09 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Lord Stern and Lord Giddens frightened the wits out of a Goldman Sachs audience I attended this week on the risks of a global water, food, and energy crisis.
Without wishing to take a stand one way or the other on the bitterly polarized issue of climate change, I pass on some of their remarks so readers can judge for themselves.
Nicholas Stern -- the author of the Government’s Stern Report on the economic effects of climate change, and former chief economist at the World Bank -- said we have a one in two chance of destroying civilization within the life-span of people already born, unless drastic action is taken to slow CO2 emissions.
“If we let go, if we carry on with business as usual, there is a 50pc chance that global temperatures will be 5 degrees centigrade higher by the end of century than it was in pre-industrial times. The last time that happened, the world was a swamp and there were alligators up to the North Pole,” he said.
“We have had a rise of 0.8 degrees so far, and already South West Africa and parts of Spain are drying out.”
“We can draw the risk down to 3pc if we cut emissions by 50pc by 2050. That means will have to cut from 6 tonnes of carbon per capita to 2 tonnes. This insurance policy would amount to a one-off cost 1.5pc to 2pc of world GDP”.
(At the moment, use per capita is roughly 20 tonnes in the US, 12 in Europe, and 5 in China. Goldman’s Abby Cohen, who hosted the panel, said Russia uses 8 times as much energy as the US or Europe to produce an equivalent amount of GDP, while China uses four times as much.)
Lord Stern said this would entail an 80pc cut in emissions for the rich world. “Gordon Brown has already declared for 80pc, and both McCain and Obama in the US are near that figure.” He said it was politically ‘doable’.
Anthony Giddens -- a Professor at the London School of Economics, and Tony Blair’s “Third Way” guru -- said the leading nations would have to relearn the forgotten art of long-term planning. “Leaving this to the market is not a possible solution.Lord Giddens said there are three main schools of thought. The deniers (he singled out former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, author of `An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming’), the mainstream consensus around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that views the world as a fragile creature, and those that fear the IPCC is far too optimistic (they see the planet as an angry beast that lashes out when prodded).
Lord Giddens is -- I suspect -- in group three. “This could be even more dangerous than we think. We know there are threshold effects. Dramatic climate change can happen in less than ten years,” he said.
“Malthus who was so constantly dismissed as sitting in a corner smirking. We’re in a new phase of human social evolution,” he said.
Peter Sutherland, BP Chairman and former head of GATT, said the only answer to the crisis is the creation of a supranational body like the European Commission or the World Trade Organization with the powers to enforce global action with the backing of an independent court.Such are the debates are going on inside the elite banks in the City. There was very little dissent. Not a single member of the high-powered audience questioned the Stern assumptions. The chit-chat was purely about the best instruments for cutting CO2 emissions. (Lots of disagreement on carbon trading).
I make no judgment on these views (though I confess to having read Fred Pearce’s “Last Generation”, twice, and found it quite arresting). I certainly cannot vouch for the data, or the accuracy of climate models used by the IPCC.
My own view is that technology and human creativity will come up trumps in the end -- perhaps sooner that we suspect -- but that is idle speculation. The climate debate has the feel of the Lutheran-Calvinist-Counter Reformation disputes of the 16th Century. At least we are not yet burning heretics/martyrs, though perhaps we will before this is all over.
I just sent this to Reid and my 2 Colorado Senators:
NO on S. 3036!!
America’s Climate Security Act is a FRAUD!!!!
There is NO legislation or behavior by mankind that is capable of impacting “America’s Climate” or ANY climate on earth!
This mindless scare tactic is a mechanism to tax and control American citizens and transfer America’s wealth to other countries.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant!
CO2 is not even close to being a dominant “greenhouse gas”.
Water vapor comprises over 90% of the earth’s “greenhouse gases”, and there are too many variables for today’s best scientists, with today’s best software algorithms and computers, to ACCURATELY model the variables contributing to the levels of atmospheric water vapor.
CO2 comprises less than 4% of the earth’s “greenhouse gases” and man’s contribution is a VERY small fraction of that amount. (less than 3% of that 4%)
Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 levels do NOT precede global temperature increases!
In fact CO2 levels TRAIL global temperature levels by 800 years!
The fact is that there has been NO GLOBAL TEMERATURE RISE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS!!!!!
They’re just drooling over the prospect of carbon credit trading.
There’s a 99/1 chance that this guy is an idiot.
Heaven help us, one of these morons will be POTUS.
start buying carbon futures, I guarantee you’ll end up making tons of money off of stupid people. Although if things get too out of hand the massive amounts of money you make will only be worth hundreds of todays dollars which might buy a months worth of groceries if your lucky.
What they should be saying is the reaction to the hype of global warming may destroy civilization.
IMO, there’s a 90/10 chance that Liberals will destroy America and freedom in the next four years. I would spend more energy on that disaster!!!
Hmmmmmm....
Death by militant Islamists, Global Warming, Drought, Bird Flu, Leftist/Obama ruined economy, economic collapse due to oil blackmail, HIV/AIDS, Black Racists on a rampage, Chinese Nuclear attack, North Korean Nuclear attack, Pakistani Nuclear attack, Iranian Nuclear attack, Syrian Nuclear attack........
Woe is me!
We’re all gonna die —— and I’m coming to believe that perhaps MANY deserve the fate....
There is a 100% chance that this global warming, cap and trade, bill S. 3036, will destroy this civilization if it becomes law. It will cripple industry and our economy.
This is socialism which has always destroyed civilizations including that of the Soviet Union. It’s scary that both Obama and McCain (McAmnesty, McCain-Feingold) are for this bill.
Are the American people really going to let these politicians destroy the greatest country ever, our country, America?
British ninnies throwing a hissy fit. 30 years ago they’d have been members of Monty Python. These days they’re members of the global warming cult.
I am far more worried about Global Warming alarmists destroying civilization with their moronic schemes. They are far more likely to take us into the dark ages by ensuring basics like energy and food become unaffordable. Of course, perhaps their end goal IS a return to the dark ages—with the UN bureaucracy as the Lords and the rest of us as the serfs.
Yeah, stupid like a fox.
a better than 50-50 chance that
global stupidity
will destroy the planet.
From what I’ve seen, humans will destroy civilization before climate change does.
What civilization? ;)
>>He said it was politically ‘doable’.
These people are complete idiots.
Did anyone bother to ask anyone with an ounce of technical and economic acumen? No?
We are so screwed.
Evans-Pritchard, or the buffoons he cites?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.