Bishop Hill Stern's absurdity
Sep 20, 2014 Climate: WG3 Economics Richard Tol has written a splendid riposte to Lord Stern's latest attempt to convince us that encumbering the economy with all manner of green "measures" will make us all richer.
The original Stern Review argued that it would cost about one percent of Gross Domestic Product to stabilise the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases around 525 ppm CO2e. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the costs twice as high. Stern2.0 advocates a more stringent target, 450 ppm, and finds that this would accelerate economic growth.
This is implausible. Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. The rapid expansion of renewables is because they are heavily subsidised rather than because they are commercially attractive. The renewables industry collapsed in countries where subsidies were withdrawn. Raising the price of energy does not make people better off. Higher taxes, to pay for subsidies, are a drag on the economy.
Stern's magical thinking on climate economics has been disastrous for everyone, except perhaps for the man himself, who has become rich on the back of his forays into the climate debate. History will not be kind to him.
Postscript: Tol's article is also posted at the Conversation, where Stern supporters seem unable to respond with rational argument, heading straight for the ad-hominem offensive.
Reader Comments (30)
"Stern's magical thinking on climate economics has been disastrous for everyone, except perhaps for the man himself, ...."
And the owners of Subsidy Farms.
A Dinosaur from the Bliar era, utterly corrupt, like the whole Cabal at the time.
http://www.information.dk/487918
What about the present? The man is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the modern world. The Peter Principle on steroids. His talents would be more suited to running a market stall in Walthamstow. A perennial candidate in Pointman's Pratt of the Year Award but so devoid of charisma that indifference is the strongest emotion that he can evoke.
And already it is history
+1, +1, +1.
Succinct and to the point.
Ben Pile is unimpressed by this latest confection of Stern's:
Ben is also unimpressed with this 'institution', this 'global commission':
' except perhaps for the man himself, who has become rich on the back of his forays into the climate debate.'
To be fair not just him , meanwhile remember making rich people richer still is want he gets paid for ,after all who signs his pay cheques and why .
One has to love the "get less for paying more" of the greens and totalitarianists. Less energy, pay more. Less food, pay more. Less wealth for the middle class, pay more. And the list goes on. There is one exception. They reverse the equation for themselves.
Nick Stern .... where to start?
A hubris addled fantasist poster boy for what's profoundly wrong with the UK's public sector eh?
Those Stern supporters at The Conversation can do no better than link to a Fiona Harvey article ... hell's teeth - when are these people going to have their noses rubbed in the ordure they keep spouting?
I'm curious about what professional economists think of Stern's, er, work. I remember reading about two economists who tried to point out at conferences that Stern's work would get an F in an undergraduate paper; they were more or less drummed out of professional gatherings. (I believe there were two big issues: how to estimate future costs of a given initiative in comparison to present costs; and similarly with first world costs vs. third world; yes, models are surely involved, and there are good and bad models). Has the economics profession as a whole been corrupted by the warming narrative?
I can prove that Stern lied in certain parts of his first report.
Lord Stern, you are a liar.
Please feel free to sue me.
@ Don Keiller:
There would be rather a lot of interest if such a claim could be verified.
@Lloyd
Not at all. The original Stern Review was rubbished in a series of critiques in a range of learned economic journals. Stern has since largely excused himself from engagement with his peers -- he moves in political circles, rather than in academic ones -- so there is neither a need nor an opportunity to ostracize him.
Stern issues the occasional "why do no other economists agree with me?" which is typically met by a polite silence.
"Lord Stern has been Chair of the Grantham Research Institute since"............too bloody long.
Liar or fantasist, I prefer dissembler and promulgator, Nick Stern he is a dangerous man because most unfortunately for us all - he still has the ear of Government. Stern, with his library of rambling guff and Panglossian enthusiasm for vastly expensive but archaic and useless technologies still carries weight, how this can be? Hell - because the people voted for them [politicians] and him [Stern] by extension.
" His talents would be more suited to running a market stall in Walthamstow" ... into bankruptcy.
@Cheshired. will this do?
Lord Stern’ Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) concluded that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting. In particular his Review points to the potential negative impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. Not surprisingly it has had a profound effect on Government Policy since.
I have taken a particular interest in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Stern Report, which largely concerns crop productivity, as I am a Plant Physiologist, by training, I can write with authority in this area. Stern concludes that high temperatures impact adversely on agricultural production and as an example show how high temperatures result in marked reductions in yield on cool-season crops. This is illustrated in Figure 3.4 of the Review.
This figure is quoted as been taken from Wheeler et al. (1996). However on reading this paper it is apparent that Figure 3.4 is a highly misleading description of the findings which are presented in Fig. 11 of Wheeler’s paper.
This figure shows the relationship between the number of grains per ear, and the maximum half-hourly temperature in the 5-day period ending at anthesis (flowering) for crops grown at current, 380-390 umol.mol-1 CO2 and elevated, 684-713 umol.mol-1 CO2.
My first concern is why Lord Stern used data from an obscure publication (Wheeler et al 1996) and indeed, manipulated it to produce a conclusion that was not supported by the original authors?
They clearly state in their abstract “Mean seed dry weight was increased by > 72 % at elevated CO2, because grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”. Furthermore whilst Lord Stern went to the trouble to delete data, which did not support his narrative, from Wheeler's graph, he further emphasised the apparent decline by adding a green “dogleg” line, which did not appear in the original graph. Moreover one has to question why Lord Stern did not chose to present evidence from multiple publications, all available at the time, that clearly demonstrate that under the scenarios of increased CO2 and temperature used in his report: “Projections of future warming depend on projections of global emissions (discussed in chapter 7). If annual emissions were to remain at today’s levels, greenhouse gas levels would reach close to 550 ppm CO2 by 2050. Using the lower and upper 90% confidence bounds based on the IPCC TAR range and recent research from the Hadley Centre, this would commit the world to a warming of around 2 – 5°C.” (Stern review Page 12 and Table 1.1) plant and agricultural productivity are increased, rather than decreased as Lord Stern states: “In tropical regions, even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield. In higher latitudes, crop yields may increase initially for moderate increases in temperature but then fall. Higher temperatures will lead to substantial declines in cereal production around the world, particularly if the carbon fertilisation effect is smaller than previously thought, as some recent studies suggest.” (Stern review Page 67).
The correct interpretation of Wheeler’s data, in accordance with IPCC TAR range, (see above) shows grain numbers in Winter Wheat increase under the dual conditions of high CO2 and temperature quoted by Lord Stern. Data from Wheeler et al (1996).
Furthermore even a cursory search of the relevant literature, available at the time, shows that Lord Stern’s conclusions are seriously flawed. Perhaps the most authoritative paper of the time is that of Ainsworth and Long (2005) which collated data from 120 primary, peer-reviewed articles describing responses to plants under a variety of high [CO2] (475–600 ppm) and temperature scenarios, precisely those envisaged in his report. They state that: “Stimulation of photosynthesis at elevated [CO2] is theoretically predicted to be greater at higher temperatures (Drake et al., 1997). When the FACE (free air CO2 enhancement) data were divided between experiments conducted below 25°C and those conducted above 25°C, this prediction was supported. At lower temperatures (< 25°C) Asat (photosynthesis) was increased by 19%, and at temperatures above 25°C Asat was increased by 30% when plants were grown under elevated [CO2] . Precisely what Wheeler et al (1996) found. Significantly they also quote Drake et al (1997) which demonstrates that the theoretical underpinning of increased plant productivity, in response to elevated CO2 and temperatures, was well-known at the time Lord Stern wrote his report, further undermining Lord Stern’s false conclusions.
Finally I note that the other graph that Lord Stern has chosen to use in Figure 3.4 (Page 69), from Vara Prasad et al (2001), uses Peanut (hardly a major crop) as an example of a tropical crop where “even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield”. However Lord Stern, again, studiously omits to say that the authors only exposed the plants to high temperatures, rather than in combination with high [CO2], as is required by Lord Stern’s quoted future high temperature, high [CO2] scenarios.
Accordingly it is clear that Lord Stern has some serious questions to answer:
1) Why did he exclude mainstream papers from his review that clearly show that plant productivity will increase under the future [CO2] and temperature scenarios he predicts?
2) Why did he deliberately remove data from the Wheeler et al (1996) paper, which clearly stated “grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2”, to suggest precisely the opposite?
3) Why did he further manipulate the already altered graph, using a superimposed line, to emphasise a decline in productivity when, in fact, no such decline existed under his stated scenario?
4) Why did he further compound the misinformation presented in the Wheeler paper with that of Vara Prasad et al (2001) which does not duplicate the conditions of his chosen high [CO2], high temperature scenario?
I do not accept that the misinformation in this part of Lord Stern’s review is the result of lack of expertise. Lord Stern is one of the World’s foremost economists and well versed in the collation, interpretation and presentation of complex data. The fact of the matter is that Lord Stern actively and deliberately chose and manipulated data to support a particular conclusion. Any reasonable person would conclude that these omissions of fact and manipulation were specifically designed to mislead Parliament.
BASICALLY HE LIED
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
Drake BG, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Long SP. (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609–639.
Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P and Morison JIL (1996) Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) Crops in Response to CO2 and Temperature. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 127, 37-48.
Vara Prasad, P.V., P.Q. Craufurd, V.G. Kakani, Wheeler TR and Boote KJ. (2001): 'Influence of high temperature on fruit-set and pollen germination in peanuts', Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28: 233.
Stern is an unprofessional chancer, distorting evidence to please whoever is his Master at the time.
That he was ennobled by his past Master at the time, Blair, was a reward for doing the same as Scarlett with the WMD dossier. Unfortunately, he will hang around the Lords in semi-perpetuity......
Fascinating that they would even attempt to argue that more CO2 would lead to decreased crop yields. I suppose they think the greenhouse operators are rather stupid to outfit their greenhouses with those CO2 enhancer thingys. Global Warming science never fails to amaze.
BiCI
"those CO2 enhancer thingys"
In the UK, they are often called boilers. Greenhouses that use CO2 enrichment (e.g. for tomatoes) often have gas-fired heating whose exhaust gas is used to supply the CO2. The smart money is on CHP units which provide electricity as well.
Working CO2 levels are over 1000ppm, which greatly improves the plant growth while affecting the occupants not at all.
Lord Stern appears to be the Paul Ehrlich of economics: provably wrong yet inexplicably accepted by elites.
Is it not climate alchemy rather than climate economics ?
There is a whole school of economics devoted to making a lucrative career out of telling governments what they want to hear. They call themselves Keynesians.
Richard Tol:
"Stern issues the occasional "why do no other economists agree with me?" which is typically met by a polite silence."
Other economists do agree with him, notably Joseph Stiglitz, of Columbia University and Ottmar Edenhofer of Schellnhuber's PIK.
Stiglitz is on the advisory council of the Oxford Martin School with him, http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/advisory-council/ and in 2008 became chairman of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on “Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.” The President of the General Assembly at that time, Mr. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua, was proposing an array of new UN institutions to deal with the global financial crisis, namely:
“Global Stimulus Fund, Global Public Goods Authority, Global Tax Authority, Global Financial Products Safety Commission, Global Financial Regulatory Authority, Global Competition Authority, Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisers, Global Economic Coordination Council, and a World Monetary Board.”
Stiglitz is also chairman of the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues. In 2011 he wrote that any global agreement fighting climate change could involve trade sanctions for those who refuse to sign up to a global deal to reduce CO2 emissions.
Both Stern and Edenhofer have proposed the same thing. In November 2010, Stern said that countries that were taking strong action on emissions, could in the future move against US exports, if the US failed to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions. Edenhofer wrote a paper with colleagues in 2009 about the effects of tariffs in gaining consensus on global warming, www.pik-potsdam.de/~lessman/docs/lessmann_tariffs_ecmod.pdf
Also in 2009 the German Federal Foreign Office commissioned the Stern/Edenhofer Report to develop strategies to be presented at the G20-meeting in London in April 2009, "Towards a Global Green Recovery - Recommendations for Immediate G20 Action".
It formed the basis for the Atlantic Task Force recommendations to the Policy Planning Staff of the German Federal Foreign Office, 26 August 2009, "Towards a Global Green Recovery – Supporting Green Technology Markets"
After a pre Copenhagen meeting of the Global 100 Executive Roundtable Dinner, with the theme The Next Motor That Will Power the Global Economy, Stern and Stiglitz published an op-ed in the Financial Times, reporting that cumulative global green stimulus announcements had reached $0.5 trillion as at July 2009.
There is more on Stern and the UN Green Climate Fund here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
Don:
It would be informative to see your analysis in graphs, McIntyre style.
Stern is the embodiment of Anthropomorphic Global Warming: He has projected human causes and issues into the universe around him, like an entrails reading voodoo priest. It is time he and his fellow hypesters like Holdren, Ehrlich, Nurse and others are exposed and taken to task.
When UFO kooks weave their goofy theories, no one is really hurt. When it comes to climate many people are being hurt by the feckless wasteful policies that Stern and gang has helped to bring about. Stern's faux economics hurts people.
He's telling lies boys and girls. It amazes me that such a simple tick as lying can fool so many people. That includes those who disagree.
@Jit- I tried to post them, but they didn't show.
Don't worry I have got them! Tried to post them to this blog, but it didn't work
I also sent them (accompanied by similar text) as a complaint to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards.
The response I got was that "a member's views and opinions are outside my remit, as are member's non-parliamentary activities"
Basically all is rosy in the House of Lords:-)
That Richard has it in for Stern is a long running soap opera. Given the gremlins that Bob Ward loosed on the lad the appearance of this "analysis" is no surprise. You'd as soon see Mark Steyn singing Mike Mann's praise. Given that RT was responsible for much of the IPCC estimation of the cost of dealing with climate change, well no surprise that it came out higher than Stern.
@Dennisa
Re. Edenhofer and Stiglitz: My point exactly.
@Eli
I've had nothing to do with the IPCC's estimates of the costs of climate policy after AR2.
Stern and Edenhofer actually admit that current economic models disagree with them but they neatly sidestep this inconvenience just by declaring the models to be crap while simultaneously failing to propose any new model beyond the notion that 'magic' might happen. The idea that this magic might not happen is not considered. To present such a rosy economic outlook to the massive engineering and financial challenges while simultaneously expecting the worst climate outlook is typical of the farcical nature of the 'consensus' thought process.
Yet the screams of pain from European industry back up the data that engendered these economic models and tell us that growth is currently far more curtailed by mitigation than by the CO2 rise. This anti-growth scenario is actually even presented as a good thing by Porrit, Klein and their ilk because growth is (to their closed minds) the real cause of the problem.
The fact that global greening (NPP) has been shown by the MODIS satellite to be in lock step with global temperature (entirely predictably because much of palioclimatology, anthropology and biology are predicated on the fact that plant and animal growth increase with temperature/CO2) is just routinely disregarded by these pause-deniers. Meanwhile 'socialist' Stiglitz and marxist Edenhofer are happy to agree with opportunist Stern's plan to continue to transfer funds from the poor to the rich via subsidies because....well some animals are more equal than others.