Chroniques patagones

La semaine dernière, la presse mainstream a fait ses choux gras d'un rapport de sir Nicholas Stern, ancien haut responsable de la Banque mondiale. Il est vrai que le scénario apocalyptique décrit par Stern ne pouvait que plaire aux journaleux : augmentation de 5 degrés de la température moyenne de la planète, coûts induits par ce phénomène estimés à quelques 20% du PIB mondial et 200 millions de personnes affectées par les sécheresses et les inondations. Pour l'instant ce qui semble sérieusement affectée, c'est la capacité de jugement critique d'un grand nombre de personnes. Comme on peut le lire dans Cato :

Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, issued the following statement this morning: "I look forward to reading the Stern report, particularly since it flies in the face of the academic literature on the subject, which finds that climate change would have only a modestly negative effect at best on the economies of OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations. The fact is that only a very small percentage of GDP in industrialized nations are affected by climate one way or the other, and there are approximately as many economic gains associated with warming as there are economic costs in OECD nations. Although the story may well be different for lesser developed nations in the equatorial regions (most of the literature expects modest net losses from warming in those economies), few economists have found significant economic costs from warming in the industrialized north. Given that, I look forward to seeing whether the Stern report really upends the consensus on these matters in the economics literature. Given the media reports about the study's findings, however, I suspect that it does not."

L'auteur de L'écologiste sceptique, Bjørn Lomborg donne son point de vue sur ce rapport qui est en passe de devenir la nouvelle Bible des écologistes, la Vérité Révélée :

The report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

Toujours dans Opinion Journal :

Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.

The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.

The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.

Ronald Bailey, dans un article intitulé « Stern Measures. Averting climate change is surprisingly affordable. Or is it? », montre comment fonctionne le politiquement correct dans ce domaine et dans bien d'autres :

Just as a thought experiment, let's assume that boosting energy prices by imposing a carbon tax reduces economic growth by 1 percent per year. And because people like Stern, who are worried about climate change, are constantly mentioning their concern about the poor in Bangladesh, let's look at how a 1 percent cut in that country's growth rate would affect their future prospects. In recent years, Bangladesh's economy has been growing at about 6 percent per year. Let's assume the new carbon taxes cut Bangladesh's economic growth rate by 1 percent to 5 percent per year. Bangladesh's current GDP is $55 billion. So if Bangladesh's economy grew at 5 percent compounded for 50 years, it would increase to $630 billion and in 100 years it would exceed $7.2 trillion.  However, Bangladesh's economy grew at 6 percent for 50 years, it would top over $1 trillion and in 100 years it would be $18.5 trillion. A 1 percent reduction in economic growth makes a big difference over the generations. Now the main concern about Bangladesh is how a warming world will cause rising sea levels to flood much of that country. It's interesting to note that the Dutch manage to keep the sea from flooding their low lying country with a GDP of just $500 billion.

MÀJ : lire l'excellent article de Christopher Monckton paru dans le Telegraph (essai compris).