Costly decarbonisation of the economy is based on a flawed review

New Report: Stern Review ‘Not Fit For Purpose’

By Guest Column Dr. Benny Peiser (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, September 4, 2012 | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Britain embarked on a hugely ambitious policy to decarbonise its economy with virtually no scrutiny of the costs. Now those costs are starting to hit families and firms. When challenged, the government bases its claim that the benefits to the world exceed the costs to British taxpayers on the Stern review on The Economics of Climate Change — on which Australia’s Garnaut review was modelled. Yet the Stern review has now been shown to be fundamentally flawed — leaving all three parties that have defended this policy with a huge dilemma. -Peter Lilley, The Australian, 4 September 2012

As the cost of government measures to combat climate change hit households and businesses, a new study published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation casts grave doubts on the validity of the “Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change” which the government relies on to justify its policies. The substantial study, by Peter Lilley MP, is the most thorough analysis of the Stern Review so far undertaken. It takes the IPCC’s view of the science of global warming as given, but points out that Stern’s economic conclusions contradict the views of most of the world’s leading environmental economists and even the economic conclusions of the IPCC itself. The study also catalogues a series of errors and distortions in the Stern Review “any one of which would have caused it to fail peer review”. Lilley calls on the government to cease basing its climate change policy on the flawed Stern Review and commission a new independent cost benefit study of alternative strategies.—The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 4 September 2012

If we continue to follow Stern’s advice, the principal losers, apart from British taxpayers and businesses, would be developing countries who cannot raise living standards without massively increasing their use of fossil fuels and will therefore be responsible for most of the growth of carbon emissions. Why should this comparatively poor generation make the sacrifices Stern demands to improve living standards of people in 2200 who, if we take no action to prevent global warming – even on the worst scenario depicted by Stern – will be 7 times better off than us? –Peter Lilley, MP, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 4 September 2012

A senior British Conservative has called for the commissioning of a fresh independent study into the economics of climate change and sharply criticised economist Nicholas Stern’s six-year-old report – which warned that the costs of doing nothing to prevent global warming significantly outweighed the costs of acting. In a new paper published today called What is wrong with Stern?, Conservative MP Peter Lilley claims that the influential report “was not fit for purpose” and urges the government to adopt a new strategy taking a more gradual approach to reducing emissions. According to Lilley, while Stern’s arguments were considered “incontrovertible truth” at the time, “the mood has changed since the recession” as the costs of tackling climate change have hit homes and businesses.—Daniel Mason, Public Service Europe, 4 September 2012

Nicholas Stern is to blame. When you see wind farms covering every hill and mountain and most of the valleys too, you can blame Stern. If you can’t pay your heating bills, ask Stern why this has happened. When children are indoctrinated and dissenting voices crushed, it is at Nicholas Stern that you should point an accusing finger. When the lights start to go out in a few years time, it’s Stern who will have to explain why. Despite years of having mainstream economists pointing to the flaws in the Stern Review there has been an almost unanimous collective shrug from the media, more interested in climate porn than the wellbeing of their neighbours. But perhaps the tide has turned. The GWPF has just published Peter Lilley’s devastating critique of Stern’s magnum opus and if this does not alert our policymakers to the confidence trick that has been pulled on them then we can reasonably assume that their ignorance is willful. Lilley’s case is so overwhelming it’s hard to know where to begin.—Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 4 September 2012

It’s astonishing to re-read Stern’s government-commissioned report today and be reminded that the ‘bedrock’ of climate economics itself rests such a flimsy base. But at the time, the watchdogs didn’t bark. For an issue that is discussed in stark moral terms – good guys favour cutting carbon emissions, and bad guys don’t – things are not what they seem, suggests former Cabinet Minister Peter Lilley. Poverty is the greatest killer on the planet, robbing societies of the ability to protect themselves, and look after their most vulnerable. A legacy of our obsession to cut carbon dioxide emissions aggressively may be to trap billions in poverty, and the avoidable suffering that goes with it.—Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 4 September 2012