In his first public lecture since December’s Copenhagen Summit, Lord Stern, author of the Stern review and Professor of Economics and Government at LSE, described his visit to Copenhagen as “chaotic, wearing, tiring and disappointing.”
He states that this was largely due to the fact that there was neither a clear negotiating platform nor was there a single voice or representative to speak on behalf of Europe. The BBC reports that this disappointment was largely down to "arrogance" on the part of rich countries as the US and EU nations had not understood the concerns of poorer nations.
As expected, Lord Stern’s lecture was extremely educational and supported by substantial facts and figures. But even as a reformed global warming sceptic, it’s still difficult for me to picture the complex series of events which could lead to rising food prices and even starvation as agriculture struggles to cope with growing demand in increasingly arid conditions, as global warming leads to floods and desertification.
But it wasn’t all doom and gloom from the former Chief Economist at the World Bank. By means of technology sharing, it is possible to create a 50/50 chance of avoiding a rise in global average temperature of more than 2 degrees C, which many scientists regard as the threshold for dangerous climate change. In fact, Lord Stern said that the world can achieve targets set in the Copenhagen Summit if richer countries participate in the "decarbonisation" of electricity by switching to renewable energy, such as wind, solar or geothermal. However the rich world is also required to help less developed economies switch from dirty coal-fired power stations to new technologies. Poor countries will also need money to adapt to the effects of climate change such as flooding and droughts.
It is, of course, also important to ensure future generations can enjoy the opportunities for sustainable growth offered by a low carbon economy, and for these generations to be free from the expected severe risks that would arise from unchecked climate change. But throughout Lord Stern’s presentation I couldn’t help but wonder what the debt burden will be like by 2020? 2050? It seems that I wasn’t the only one worried about this, and concerns about debt became a running theme in the Q&A session. Lord Stern remained adamant that more government investment into the UK’s energy infrastructure is needed to meet the challenges of climate change and save the planet from total catastrophe. It was clear that while members of the audience had great enthusiasm to combat climate change by means of recycling, using energy saving blubs and so on, it could very well be a different story when we’re being asked to fork out to pay more taxes to curb emissions and hit targets outlined in the Copenhagen Accord.
There certainly isn’t a shortage of ideas on how to invest in greener areas, for example proposals have been put through to produce fuel from algae. However these ideas still need to be sifted and analysed and weighed against the risks in green investment. In his lecture, Lord Stern implies that nations have to be willing to spend more than they can afford to ensure a sustainable future for themselves. I hope that if we as individuals, with such different political perspectives and business goals, can come to an understanding of what must be done and how, then we can certainly hope that our leaders can too.