Climate Adaptation


I want to punch climate change in the face. A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature. - FAQs - Follow - Face - Ask - Donations - Climate Book Store

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

I devoured Lord Stern’s now famous report six years ago (has it been that long!?). At the time Stern’s report was very controversial. It focused primarily on the economic impacts from climate, and had included some incredibly high numbers. It was widely thought to be out-of-touch with reality - that his numbers were wildly overestimated and his analysis of the models was flawed. True, this reception has softened somewhat over the years.

Now Stern says he didn’t go far enough.

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more “blunt” about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies.

"This is potentially so dangerous that we have to act strongly. Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential."

The Guardian

  • 114 notes
  • 1 year ago
  • Jan 29, 2013
    1. theawkwardoctopus reblogged this from protocol-ghost
    2. protocol-ghost reblogged this from emergentfutures
    3. strayblossoms reblogged this from emergentfutures
    4. sarcarnate reblogged this from emergentfutures
    5. sirlowkey reblogged this from emergentfutures
    6. bkdi reblogged this from emergentfutures
    7. gohar1 reblogged this from emergentfutures
    8. zeitgeistrama reblogged this from emergentfutures
    9. jgrassound reblogged this from emergentfutures
    10. emergentfutures reblogged this from climateadaptation
    11. sustainableprosperity reblogged this from mikhail-suslov
    12. bootyregrit reblogged this from resistkxl
    13. boomboomshot reblogged this from mikhail-suslov
    14. hom3iswhereyourheartis reblogged this from mikhail-suslov
    15. mikhail-suslov reblogged this from resistkxl
    16. resistkxl reblogged this from darthnickels
    17. windowhirl reblogged this from climateadaptation
    18. austere-state-of-mind reblogged this from theamericanbear
    19. lexithemonkeyman reblogged this from climateadaptation and added:
      We must coos to act as a collective human species inorder to save our would and our lives the way we know them today!
    20. liberalwithguts reblogged this from theamericanbear
    21. theamericanbear reblogged this from climateadaptation