#58: nowhere left to hide

Sir Nicholas Stern, the ex-World Bank Chief Economist, presented his report on global warming to the top bosses of the British Government. How enlightened and in contrast to the initiatives (or the lack thereof) on the other side of the Atlantic: this was an honest effort to come to a true understanding about global warming. It chose a person untainted by lobbies and unfazed by the circus of claims and counter-claims of vested interests. Sir Nicholas is a hard-nosed economist; he's neither a bleeding-heart environmentalist, nor a corporate stooge. You couldn't seek any more credibility.

I have only read the highlights of his 600 page report. From all accounts, it is a thorough analysis – something we as students of Public Policy would be proud to produce. It is incisive, thoughtful, meticulous in details, and yet focussed on the overall picture. It lists out the possible future scenarios, and the impact of interventions, if any. It's a complete exercise, not some half-baked patch-up bureaucratic con-job.

So what did it conclude? That we are in grave danger. And that "staying the course" (paraphrasing a prominent head of state) is not really an option – not even in the short run.

Among the dire projections:

• 200 million people are at risk of being driven from their homes by flood or drought by 2050.
• 60 million Africans could be exposed to malaria in a world 2°C warmer.
• 4 billion people could suffer from water shortages if temperatures rise by 2°C.
• If nothing is done about global warming the world economy would shrink by up to 20%, that's US$ 2 trillion a year.
• Developing countries would, of course, be hardest hit with poverty increasing, disease spreading, trade worsening and hundreds of millions of people dying.
• Spending just 1% of GDP per year (US$ 90 billion annually) in an international effort could stabilise carbon emissions and reverse the alarming trend.

These results are significant for two reasons. First, it gives a concrete measure of the cost of "staying the course". Second, it calls the bluff on the argument that the costs of adjustment exceed the potential benefits. No. 2 trillion > 90 billion. And that's not even accounting for intangibles.

Sir Nicholas has done the math. It is up to the bosses (one in particular) to sit up and show some spine in taking on big businesses. Ironically, big businesses have begun voluntary adjustments – that is, excluding oil, gas, and auto industries.