Talk:Stern Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stern Review article.
Article policies
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

What an excellent name for this: one I can see producing many wonderful puns for future generations. "A Stern Review of the facts", etc. --84.64.51.100 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Economist as author

The extent to which many news sources have suggested that this makes the report more compelling is interesting, and may demonstrate something about the relative trust assigned by members of the public and the media to economists and scientists respectively. Is it appropriate to mention that in the article?

--Ilnyckyj 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

May be editorializing a bit, though I certainly agree with your assessment. I don't know why an economist has any business issuing a report on global warming -- any more than a meteorologist should be issuing a report on the stock market. --The Great Zo 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because global warming has massive economic implications. Because he can show that the cost of prevention is much less than cost of adaptation to it. Because he can estimate the optimal level of expenditure on mitigation. Blaise 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there something new here? The IPCC has been issuing economic studies for years, and climate studies using statistics without statisticians. (SEWilco 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
funily enough there's an overlap in the mathematics of meteorology and the stockmarket--213.249.155.247 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) - Yes, indeed, both are chaotic! Fenton Robb 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The important thing when communicating with economists and politicians is to put a price on something.210.11.227.60 09:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the report is about the response to global warming, not global warming per se, your complaints have no merit. If an economist can't comment on this kind of impact, then exactly who can? mdf 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the media has said that it's an economist rather then a scientist which is what makes it different. We can at least report this even if we probably can't go in to details about how this demonstrates a relative leve of trust. BTW, it's not so much about an economist not being allowed to comment on the response of global warming but whether scientists who have been saying that the catostrophic effects of global warming and what we need to do about it. While they may not have been able to analyse the economic side that well, they have arguably still been providing a compelling argument of what we need to do and why we need to do it. Anyway this is all a bit too OT Nil Einne 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it has something to do with the 20% of Global GDP/GNP price tag. SolitaryWolf 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut , the Stern Review is one of the first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist and not an atmospheric scientist.[1]. Its sort-of true, but its a confusion, and liable to confuse readers. Firstly (and somewhat trivially) if its "one of the first" then which are the others? But more, this report is about the *economics* of climate change. It has little to say about the science (errm, other than exaggerating a bit). Its not at all comparable to, say, the IPCC reports.

It needs to be put into historical context and given significance. As it reads now it is just a report about economics and not science, which is true, but doesn't say much. The wording can be modified, but the reports historical context and its larger significance needs to framed somehow. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentence

the Stern Review is historically notable as being one of the first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist and not an atmospheric scientist.[1]

First off, the report is only a day old, so the use of the word "historically" seems inappropriate. Even "notable" seems off the mark, since it may well be (given the attention span of your typical human specimen) entirely forgotten in a month. The last clause, however, can be interpreted as a hint that the likes of Stern are not to be trusted on these matters, yada yada (see above commentary). I'll note that just looking over the table of contents, Stern is focusing solely on the economic impact, having little to say about the physics of the situation. mdf 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced. Read the source on what it says specifically if you want to change the wording of it. As an encyclopedia it is important to put things in context, not just bare naked facts - context and importance and notability of a subject is what an encyclopedia is about. -- Stbalbach 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. However, given the report is now about 36 hours old, I suggest that it isn't possible to assess its "importance", "notability" or make remarks about "historic" stuff at this time, regardless of any amount of commentary it has received. Basically, hours != years. Subsequent reports or events may shrink this report to insignificance; a previous report by Stern has suffered this fate already (through no fault of his own). As for the "sourced" stuff, it says nothing about "historically notable" or similar. It simply says that the idea of getting an economist to look into the economic impact of global warming was, somewhow, a unique, ground-breaking, forehead-smacking aha! innovation. Something like having a car mechanic comment on that odd noise from your engine, as opposed to asking a hair dresser about it. Unfortunately for this thesis, there is a decade+ of research about this. Just google up "economic impact of global warming economist" (no quotes). mdf 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree about the notability part. If it is really forgotten in a month which I highly doubt, we would have to at least comment on how noteable it was at the time of it's release so there's nothing wrong with commenting on it's level of notability at the moment. I agree we probably can't talk about historic and perhaps not even of importance at the current time Nil Einne 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how saying first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist is going to change in the future. Historic notability is about the past not the future. As for economics of global warming, it does qualify by saying first major government-sponsored report - the wording could be changed, but obviously this is different and more significant from previous reports. I'm sure there are other opinions on the reports significance, if you want it could be possible to start a section documenting commentaries which might be interesting. -- Stbalbach 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I assume it is strictly true that this is one of the first major government-sponsored reports on global warming conducted by an economist and not an atmospheric scientist, this rather contorted phrase seems to give the fact too much weight and imply that there is something very innovative about this report. In reality there have been other such government-sponsored reports; for example, the Copenhagen Consensus which considered global warming in depth (inter alia) was sponsored by the Danish government and conducted a panel of Nobel laureates & other leading economists. Also I wonder whether the Stern review mainly seems notable in the UK only, whose politicians & media have given it a great deal of attention as it was written for the UK government. Ben Finn 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the latest wording, which I have cut to here:

Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.[2]

The claim that it is 'the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind' seems highly questionable - this may be so within the UK but that is not worth saying. The citation given for the claim is a UK web site I have never heard of (The First Post) - not really a decent source. Ben Finn 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's common knowledge this report is significant. Something needs to be said to that effect. I'm not sure attacking the source is the right approach because I can find other sources that give some mention of its importance, in different wording. It will always be subjective. But I really don't see anyone disagreeing with the core idea, in whatever way it needs to be phrased. It places the report into historical context and significance, which is what Encyclopedia's are supposed to do. -- Stbalbach 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and current events tag

Removed the cleanup tag. Please detail what the problem is.

Removed the current events tag - article and story no longer changing rapidly, main facts are in place.

--Stbalbach 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response and critisism

Is their a reason why the cririsism gets about as much space as the responses? The way it stands now, it looks as if the Review is not accepted as a valid, scientificly based review, by a good portion of the scientific community. I do not believe this is true. If we're going to leave in the critisisms, can I put in page after page of responses that are positive on the review ? Well I think I'll considerably add to it anyhow, don't feel in the mood at the moment though. Regards Sean Heron 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Stern Review is not scientific. It is economic (and political). Stern accepts the scientific consensus as the basis of his discussion of the economic issues. wycombe 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Economics is considered a science (see fields of science), they approached the report in a scientific manner, according to the best practices of economic science. It may not be a natural science, but then, would you want a biologist as your banker? -- Stbalbach 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please may I draw to your attention a letter to Telegraph by Prof Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur, Paris which includes "…. a glance at the professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes etc. confirms that this consensus is a myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. ... I am reminded of Trofim Lysenko ... A genuine concern for mankind demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse. [1]

An example of how scientists who dissent from the ‘official’ global warming account is to be found at [2]

I understand that the NPOV policy of Wikipedia is to offer an even-handed account, so, in the light of your threat, I shall not post any more reactions, either positive or negative, unless and until you undertake not to destroy this article in the way you propose.

Fenton Robb 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this page avoids re-fighting the global warming wars. We have scientific opinion on climate change if you want to do that. However, as far as I can see the section is fairly accurate: those in favour have accepted it uncritically; those against have reverted to type and gone off on the usual anti-IPCC rant. What seems to be largely missing is the valid middle ground criticism that the review has picked high-end climate scenarios and high-end sensitivities and high-end impacts. Possibly these are too subtle for the mass media :-). But as usual there is more intelligent info on the blogs (ahem). So: [3] and [4] (those are both me). [5] Tim Worstall on the economics; [6] James Annan on the science; [7] Roger Pielke on the hurricane damage. Alas these are all but blogs and therefore clearly not as reliable as newspapers :-( William M. Connolley 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Umbelivable that such a highly questionable rendition of a serious work (the Stern report)is not flagged as a controversial article. The larger space given to dubious "skeptics", vs the very limited positive responses (virtually only responses from the report sponsors and connected groups in the UK)falls only short of a blattant bias. It appears clear that the article was written by someone living in the USA environmental titanic, where companies like Exxon fund "skeptic" think tanks to undermine in the midia the first ever consensus in the scientific community, not a minor event, one that was the only logical result from tsunamis upon tsunamis of observational, experimental, modeling and theoretical evidences(if you have doubts, type in www.scholar.google.com the string "global warming evidences"). This consensus had a clear leadership: extensive and serious work developed by the American scientific powerhouse. Surprisingly, most of the research was sponsored by "clean" federal money, not dirty Exxon money. And paradoxaly, most of this boost in the US climate change research was spurred in the early 90s by guess who? If you remembered the old dady Bush you are right, funding research was the excuse back then for taking no action respecting the warming. I do not think Wikipedia should leave this biased article unchecked. User:Antonio D Nobre

I have now made true on my "promise" of adding "page upon page" of positive response. I do not think this bloated form is particularly oppertune, but I also do not agree with (presumably) about every last critic being quoted, yet only a represantativly small number of concurrent being quoted. Regards Sean Heron 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually think it is useful information. Someone doing a report, or writing a history, would find it valuable. I wouldn't cheapen it by suggesting its only there for balance. -- Stbalbach 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lomborg

I don't think it is accurate to describe Lomborg as "a global warming skeptic". He accepts that the earth is getting warmer and that it is probably largely caused by human activity. (As a non-scientist he believes he must accept the weight of scientific opinion). He does say that he believes the cost of mitigation out-weighs the benefits. This, of course, is primarily an economic issue.


Unless someone violently disagrees, I will change the description to "economist".

Careful with that, there is a sub-field in economics that is concerned with the environment. See Environmental Economics SolitaryWolf 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And is WSJ considered a "conservative" newspaper? Though it is mainly a business paper, I don't believe it is usually conservative, in the American sense of that term. wycombe 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lomborg is not an economist. He is best known for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist in which he is skeptical - in the context of this article, I think it's fair to call him a "skeptic". Yes, the WSJ is considered a conservative paper in the USA. They regularly features op/ed's about climate change skepticism. -- Stbalbach 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In TSE, Lomberg is skeptical of many things, but GW isn't one of them. He's said this in other venues as well. A quickie google search:
“ It seems incontrovertible to me that there is a global warming effect and that it is going to be serious, probably not in the amount of, say, six degrees warming, but it’s likely that we’ll get two to three degrees warming and that will be serious enough. ”
Indeed, few of his writings on GW make any sense at all unless he accepts GW as "real". In light of this, we can not refer to him "global warming skeptic", in any context: it is just not consistent with the sources. I'll tweak the article. mdf 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In TSE, Lomborg *is* skeptical of GW: he spends most of the GW chapter quibbling. Later on (Copenhagen Consensus) he seems to abandon this and starts from the IPCC position (on the science) William M. Connolley 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The WSJ editorial page is very conservative, but the news department skews neutral-liberal. See Wall Street Journal#Study of Media Bias. I don't think it's helpful to worry about the WSJ's political position here, though - the author is Lomborg, and the conservative nature of the WSJ editorial page isn't relevant to whether Lomborg is a credible source on this issue. TheronJ 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in accordance to the wikipedian article Bjørn Lomborg. Apparently; many scientists — including the majority of climatologists — remain critical of Lomborg's work. This may be worth mentioning. SolitaryWolf 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - I just changed the description of Lomborg (which seemed a bit POV) and I now see this has been discussed already. Well, if anyone disputes my new wording please amend it. Ben Finn 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discount Rate

I have seen it commented that the big difference with the Stern Report and other studies is in the use of discount rates comparing the impact on future generations with today. The UK government greenbook says you need to discount impact on future generations by 3.5% per year and stern said they should be considered equally with current generations: that rather throws the comparison. However I don't want to put original research in on this and cannot find the article. Can anyone else find the article?--BozMo talk 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is William Nordhaus a good enough source [8]? William M. Connolley 11:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and exactly the right discussion although it is 6 pages in. It is also a by-line in the article but I wonder if we should explain it more given the huge impact it makes on decisions. --BozMo talk 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that TSR is going to fall mostly on the discount rate; so perhaps we can be prescient and put it in, since Nordhaus is pretty notable William M. Connolley 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You said on the Radio 4 programme The Investigation broadcast on 25 January 2007 that Stern (a) took a particularly high emissions/temperature scenario and (b) extrapolated out to 2200 rather than the more typical 2100, to get his dramatic results. Unusually, I agree with your points precisely, and I suspect they [plus the high costs of adaptation and low costs of mitigation chosen by Stern] are more suspect than the discount rate (which was effectively not 0.1% but rather real GDP growth plus 0.1% - low but not insane). --Facethefacts 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But without the low discount rate the costs past 2100 don't count much William M. Connolley 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any reasons to truncate at 2100 or 2200 instead of computing the perpetuity? James S. 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As I just said: if you use a sane discount rate, there is no need to go further William M. Connolley 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If I am understanding you to say for example, that using a typical 3 or 5% rate as a perpetuity would produce about the same results as Stern's, then I am inclined to agree, but must admit my finance math isn't good enough to say for sure. It does seem likely, but someone like Stern must have thought of this. Maybe. James S. 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Many previous studies have used higher rates of pure time preference, which are similar to those used for evaluating other kinds of investments. However, we argue that this disinvestment in the environment cannot be considered in, say, the same way as an economist would consider an investment in a railway. A railway can be replaced or redesigned, it can become obsolete or redundant. In other words, the probability of survival depends on the context. In this case the context is that of the whole planet." UK Treasury Stern Review - Section 8 of this FAQ.
From the above, I get the impression that the Stern Review isn't pretending to use a normal discount rate. Rather, it's ignoring normal discount rates on the grounds that the whole planet is involved. Doesn't that take it out of the realm of economics? --SueHay 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean outside the realm of applied economics and into the theoretical realm. --SueHay 00:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The discount rate issue is critical, and Stern's view is widely supported by economists (though also widely criticised by others). I'll try to write something about this soon.JQ 03:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please. I tried to write Stern c/o Oxford, and haven't heard anything back yet. I think it's very likely that a 0.1% rate truncated at 2200 is similar to a 3 or 5% rate truncated at, say, 3000. James S. 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair

Don't you accept that Blair will resign soon (he has publicly announced that he will)? That reduces any comments he may have to also-ran. Presumably you want to keep your fanatical obsession with anthropogenic global warming very firmly on Wikipedia. This seems to me to be against the spirit and ethos of Wiki! Peterlewis 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you rephrase that politely I'd reply William M. Connolley 10:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm not really sure what you're getting at but Gordon Brown hardly seems less certain about global warming then the so called also ran Tony Blair [9] "We now have sufficient evidence that human-made climate change is the most far-reaching and almost certainly the most threatening of all the environmental challenges facing us." (N.B. comment wasn't about the Stern report) Nil Einne 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figure

Tol is a strongly anti-Stern source, and his writing on the topic is highly polemical. I don't think the figure should be presented in a way that suggests endorsement. Unless anyone has a counter-argument, I'd propose to move it to the criticism section JQ 03:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The background section reads like the Stern Report is a political response, a reaction, undermining its objective credibility. Can this be worded in a more neutral manner and bring in additional information about what led up to the writing of the report? -- Stbalbach 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But it is? Everyone knows scaremongering nets more grant money than everything being peachy. Comradeash 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blurbs from the UK Treasury

As far as I can see all the endorsements from prominent economists etc.. are blurbs from the UK Treasury that published the report. Strictly speaking I suspect we should delete them according to policy, but this may be a little harsh. However we should at least make this clear. NBeale 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Glad you said that. I certainly think we are quoting too many of them. Also the link itself, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9F3/38/20061028_Quotes-7.pdf, is broken.

The +ve crit resp section starts "The Stern Review attracted a great deal of positive attention, but little of Stern's fellow economists." Both halves of that are arguably true, but OR. I'd let them live (with of -> from). Unless you believe the treasury spin, in which case there *is* lots of +ve from econ. On yet another hand, many of the treasury quotes don't seem to be from econ anyway.

Some of these comments appeared at the same time as the Stern Review itself, even though the Stern Review was not reviewed by outsiders before publication. may need some justifiaction, too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)