Stern report

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicholas Stern , author of the report.

The Stern-Report (English Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change ) is a report published on October 30, 2006 by the former World Bank chief economist and current head of the British government's economic service, Nicholas Stern . The 650-page report, commissioned by the British government, examines in particular the economic consequences of global warming .

Results of the report

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is compared to the state before the industrial revolution already from 280 ppm (parts per million or millionths in the atmosphere) carbon dioxide equivalent risen ppm today 430 and increases annually by about 2 ppm.

The climate change is a threat to life on Earth. But it is still possible to avoid the worst risks and effects of climate change at affordable costs if swift action is taken now at national and international levels.

In order to avoid serious consequences for the global economy, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be kept below 550 ppm. In this case, the global average temperature would rise by 2 to 3 ° C.

The greenhouse gas concentration can be limited to 550 ppm if the increase in emissions is stopped within 15 years and emissions then decrease by around 2% annually. Since overall economic production, the gross domestic product , will roughly triple to quadruple by 2050, this means that emissions per unit of gross domestic product will have to be reduced by around three quarters by 2050.

The annual cost of measures to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations between 500 and 550 ppm carbon dioxide equivalents is estimated to be around 1% of global gross domestic product if action is taken now.

If nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could double its pre-industrial level by 2035, which would mean an increase in average temperature of more than 2 ° C. In the longer term, the probability that the temperature rise would exceed 5 ° C would be more than 50% if not acted. This increase would correspond to the increase in the average temperature since the last ice age.

The annual cost of climate change, if not acted, will be equivalent to the loss of at least 5% of global gross domestic product. Taking into account a wider range of risks and influences, the damage could rise to 20% or more of the expected global gross domestic product. It should be noted here that developing and emerging countries are feeling the economic consequences of climate change to an above-average extent.

Future values ​​are discounted in order to compare current expenses and subsequent damage . For this, Stern sets a value of initially 3.3 percent per year, which is reduced to a little over two percent over the course of a hundred years. The value is made up partly of the expected growth of the world economy and partly of uncertainties. With this second term, the discounting is stronger than it would have been based on the golden rule of accumulation .

The world does not need to choose between avoiding climate change and promoting growth and development. Tackling climate change is a long-term strategy for growth and can be done in a way that does not hamper the growth ambitions of rich or poor countries. Measures against climate change create new markets, for example markets for technologies for CO 2 -neutral energy generation and for CO 2 -efficient goods and services.

Emissions can be reduced through greater energy efficiency, changes in demand and the use of clean power plant, heating and transport technologies. The power plant sector would have to emit at least 60% less carbon dioxide worldwide by 2050 so that the concentration of greenhouse gases is stabilized at or below 550 ppm carbon dioxide equivalents. Profound reductions in emissions would also be required in the transport sector. The carbon generated by the production processes in the economy must be extensively separated and stored ( CO 2 sequestration ) in order to permit the continued use of fossil fuels without harming the atmosphere. Reducing emissions outside the energy sector, such as those caused by deforestation, is also essential. The loss of forests contributes more to global emissions than the transport sector every year. Preserving forests is an extremely profitable way to reduce emissions.

For an effective global climate protection policy, measures must be taken in the following three areas in particular:

  • There has to be a price for the emission of carbon - through CO 2 taxes , trading of emission rights and government regulation measures. Expanding and interlinking the large number of emissions trading approaches around the world is a powerful way of promoting profitable emissions reductions.
  • Innovations in the use of low-carbon technologies must be encouraged. Support for energy research and development should at least double worldwide, and support for the use of new low-carbon technologies should grow fivefold. International cooperation with regard to setting product standards is also a powerful way of increasing energy efficiency.
  • Obstacles to a more efficient use of energy must be removed. The public needs to be better informed in order to change attitudes and behavior.

Climate change demands an international response based on a common understanding of long-term goals and an agreement on a framework for action. Numerous countries and regions are already acting: the EU, California and China are examples. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol form a basis for international cooperation. But more ambitious action is needed around the world. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policies and that rich countries deliver on their promises to increase foreign aid to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Reactions from politicians, media and academics

The report, distributed by the British government with a worldwide media campaign in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi, has received a lot of attention, especially in Europe.

Reactions from politicians

British Prime Minister Tony Blair attended the presentation of the report. He emphasized what, in his opinion, the report was of outstanding importance.

The then Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced that he would invest 60 million Australian dollars in projects that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions . However , Australia will still not sign the Kyoto Protocol . However, the first official act of his successor Kevin Rudd was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

In Germany, among others, Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel endorsed the results of the Stern report. In an interview with the news magazine Der Spiegel on November 6, 2006, he said that in the medium term one percent of the gross domestic product would have to be spent on climate protection. Doing nothing will cost at least five times as much. In a resolution by the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party council on November 6, 2006, the Stern report said: "By 2100, every euro spent on climate protection will prevent up to twenty euros in climate damage."

Media reactions

Numerous newspapers took up the risks of climate change mentioned in the Stern report, which were highlighted in the press release of the British Treasury, with spectacular headlines. For example, the German daily newspaper Die Welt ran the headline “Climate change can cause global economic crisis.” ARD's daily news report reported that damage of the equivalent of almost 5.5 trillion euros per year by 2100 was to be expected. The English Independent devoted the first nine pages of its October 31 issue to the Stern Report with a comprehensive analysis. The Independent reported - like many German newspapers - on the prognoses of the Stern report among other things:

  • The global average temperature could rise by up to 6 ° C by the year 2100 if no measures are taken to avoid emissions.
  • The number of Africans affected by malaria will grow by 60 million.
  • 4 million km 2 of coastline are threatened by flooding from rising sea ​​levels , home to one twentieth of the world's population.
  • Agricultural yields in Africa and Arabia can decrease by up to 35% when temperatures rise by 3 ° C. This increased the risk of severe famine for 550 million more people; with a 2 ° C increase, this would be the case for 200 million people.

The explanations of the Stern Report on these forecasts were hardly addressed in the media. However, in responses to questions about the Stern Report published later on the Internet by the UK Treasury Department, it is emphasized that the results of the Stern Report are data based on a new, very highly aggregated model and are calculations for Periods into the next century and beyond. They should be taken as an "illustration" and not, as the report clearly emphasizes, too literally ("they should not, as the Review emphasizes strongly, be taken too literally.")

Reactions from scientists

On the scientific side, the study was rated very differently.

Positive and approving comments on the Stern Report came from, among others , Nobel Prize winners Robert M. Solow , James Mirrlees , Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, as well as Jeffrey Sachs , the UN Special Adviser for the Millennium Development Goals .

On November 28, 2007 the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung will publish the international climate report. More than 50 foreign employees report from their countries of assignment how climate change is perceived in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. The report gives an overview of the effects of climate change and how climate protection is dealt with in the individual countries. The initiative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung is founded u. a. on the Stern Report, which at that time received worldwide attention. A more up-to-date version was published on November 21st with the Climate Report 2011 - Politics and Perception.

However, Stern was also criticized by some scientists, in particular that his damage estimates were exaggerated. A comprehensive review entitled The Stern Review: A Dual Critique was written by Robert M. Carter, CR de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland and Richard Lindzen from a scientific point of view and by Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson , Ross McKitrick , Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson and Robert Skidelsky published from an economic point of view, in which the accuracy, completeness and objectivity of the report are called into question. But this criticism itself was also sharply attacked. The Australian National University's geoscientist Andrew Glikson compared the approach of the authors of A Dual Critique with that of creationists .

William Nordhaus , Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University in America, said the fundamental questions of climate protection policy - how much, how quickly and how expensive - remained open in the Stern report. Stern uses unusually low discount rates (“close to zero”), so that damage that will only occur in decades would be heavily weighted against today's expenses. Assuming more appropriate discount rates according to Nordhaus, the present value of the catastrophic results would almost disappear.

Richard Tol , who works at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, the University of Sussex and the Free University of Amsterdam, accused Stern in an interview of having set the damage far too high and the costs of reducing emissions far too low. Stern only used extremely pessimistic scenarios for his damage estimate of 5 to 20% of the gross domestic product and omitted other studies that calculate damage of well below one percent that the discount rate is also too low. The report does not offer a real cost-benefit analysis and can be dismissed as "alarmist and incompetent". However, this does not mean that climate change is not a problem and that greenhouse gas emissions do not have to be reduced. Rather, there are good arguments for reducing emissions.

In contrast to the above ratings, a group of scientists came to the economist Frank Ackerman to the conclusion that the Stern report does not exceed his calculations, the consequences of climate change, but under -estimated. The expected average damage in 2100 would be 10.8% of global GDP , which is many times higher than Stern's estimate.

The environmental economists Thomas Sterner and U. Martin Persson defended the Stern Report against criticism of the discount rate used. Even if they had no serious objections to the model assumptions used by Stern for discounting, his results could be justified even without the criticized low discount rates. Stern probably underestimated such damage that is not recorded by the market; Future shortages and shortages due to climate change and the changed composition of the economy would also lead to rising relative prices for certain goods and services, which would increase the expected damage and counteract the effect of discounting.

Mike Hulme , Director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Norwich, England, thought the Stern Report was premature. In his opinion, the uncertainties in the climate scenarios were so great that serious studies of the economic effects of climate change could not yet be carried out. Hulme had been asked several times by the British government to analyze the costs of climate change. But he always refused because he could not represent the result of such a study, he told the journal Nature . Hulme commented: "This is not the last word from scientists and economists, it is the last word from civil servants."

Bjørn Lomborg , lecturer at Copenhagen Business School , was similarly critical in the Wall Street Journal . Lomborg organized the “ Copenhagen Consensus ”. He believes there are projects that can do much more to promote global prosperity at much lower cost than measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Richard B. Howarth, environmental economist at Dartmouth College , defended the Stern Report. Contrary to the criticism expressed, Stern's model assumptions with regard to time preference and risk aversion of people are fundamentally correct. Strong emission reductions could also be justified by the fact that decision-makers have no right to burden posterity with unpaid damage. Stern's results are therefore not dependent on his (criticized) moral argumentation.

Ottmar Edenhofer , chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) , was extremely positive: "The Stern report will go down as the Copernican turn in the history of climate policy - it is no longer a question of whether we need an ambitious climate policy, but rather about what an ambitious climate policy should look like. The economists' question as to whether climate protection is worthwhile has now been answered: Ambitious climate protection is necessary and affordable. "

Clive Spash from the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) criticized the cost-benefit analysis approach as fundamentally unsuitable. Stern does not make a sufficient distinction between (assessable) risks and (non-assessable) imponderables. Stern also neglects important literature, only touches on ethical aspects very superficially and does not question economic growth.

Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch criticized the report as one-sided in terms of the possible difference or convergence of avoidance and adaptation. As in previous climate science and policy, they state an almost singular concentration on avoidance strategies instead of turning more towards adaptation strategies. Storch and Stehr consider the demands for an end to global warming in the sense of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as a reduction approach beyond the Kyoto Agreement to be completely unrealistic.

Felix Ekardt criticized climate economics as a whole, including Stern and his opponents. In addition to the points cited by other researchers (problematic handling of forecast uncertainties, dubious discounting model), he developed further points of criticism: Stern used outdated, still too optimistic climate data as a basis. In addition, the entire preference / efficiency approach underlying (not just climate) economics is ethically and legally untenable. Essential damage factors such as the threat of resource wars would also be ignored. Furthermore, unquantifiable concerns such as damage to life and health would be arbitrarily translated into monetary values.

In retrospect, Stern himself takes the view that the review undervalues ​​the risks of climate change. The integrated assessment models used in the report would provide too narrow a picture and would not contain important questions and ethical perspectives. The statement that the costs of trading are much lower than the costs of not acting can be made even more clearly.

See also

literature

Web links

Video

BBC video; Nicholas Stern: The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change; Public Lecture, London School of Economics; November 7, 2006

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Australia signs Kyoto Protocol  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 3, 2007@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.sueddeutsche.de  
  2. ↑ Global economic crisis due to climate change? (tagesschau.de archive), tagesschau.de , October 30, 2006
  3. ↑ Stern by numbers , The Independent , October 31, 2006
  4. ↑ Responses to the Stern Review (PDF; 102 kB)
  5. ^ Robert M. Carter, CR de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen , Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson , Ross McKitrick , Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson, Robert Skidelsky (2006): The Stern Review: A Dual Critique In: World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, October – December 2006 (PDF) ( Memento of the original from July 13, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.staff.livjm.ac.uk
  6. ^ Ian Simmonds, Will Steffen: Response to "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique" Part I: The Science , in: World Economics, Vol. 8, issue 2, 2007, pp. 133-141; Abstract online
  7. ↑ Andrew Glikson: A Response to 'The Stern Review: A Dual Critique' In: World Economics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007, pp. 233-238; Abstract online
  8. ^ William Nordhaus, The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change , November 17, 2006 (abstract, with the possibility of PDF download)
  9. ↑ "We have enough time". In: Wirtschaftswoche. November 13, 2006, archived from the original on May 23, 2007 ; accessed on November 30, 2013 (English).
  10. ^ Richard SJ Tol: The Stern Review Of The Economics Of Climate Change: A Comment . October 30, 2006 ( Online [DOC; 56 kB ]).
  11. ^ Frank Ackerman, Elizabeth A. Stanton, Chris Hope, Stephane Alberth: Did the Stern Review underestimate US and global climate damages ?. In: Energy Policy. 37, 2009, p. 2717, doi : 10.1016 / j.enpol.2009.03.011 .
  12. ↑ Thomas Sterner, U. Martin Persson (2008): An Even Sterner Review: Introducing Relative Prices into the Discounting Debate. In: Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2008 2 (1): 61–76; Abstract online
  13. ↑ Jim Giles: Special report How much will it cost to save the world? In: Nature 444, 6-7 (November 2, 2006) doi : 10.1038 / 444006a
  14. ^ Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal: Stern Review. The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare , November 2, 2006
  15. ^ Richard B. Howarth (2008): Why Stern Was Right: Time Preference, Risk, and the Economics of Climate Change. In: Revue de Philosophie Économique 9: 91–100
  16. ↑ Ottmar Edenhofer : The Copernican Turn (PDF; 510 kB)
  17. ↑ Spash on Stern , see also http://www.clivespash.org/ and http://www.csiro.org/
  18. ↑ Spash, CL (2007) The economics of climate change impacts à la Stern: Novel and nuanced or rhetorically restricted? Ecological Economics 63 (4): 706-713 (PDF; 264 kB) Archived from the original on February 2, 2014. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved December 23, 2012. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.clivespash.org
  19. ^ Nico Stehr and Hans von Storch, 2008: Adaptation and Avoidance or of the Illusion of Difference. Response to H. Ziegler. 2008. Adaptation versus mitigation - on terminology in the climate debate. In: GAIA 17/1: 19 - 24
  20. ^ Felix Ekardt: The Limits to Climate Economics / The Limits of Climate Economics. 2010, http://www.sustainability-justice-climate.eu/de/klimaoekonomik.html
  21. ↑ Nicholas Stern: Ethics, Equity and the Economics of Climate Change . Paper 1: Science and Philosophy. In: Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy (Ed.): Working Paper . 97a, November 2013, p. 45 ( Online [PDF; 582 kB ; accessed on December 20, 2018]).