From my old colleague Nick Mabey‘s presentation: a comparison of two competing narratives about future action.
The Stern Review is in no doubt that the cost benefit analysis is clear: we must act now! The damages will cost 5-25% of future GDP; future costs should be valued highly; the low carbon economy is pretty cheap to install.
Not a bit of it, says the IPCC. Future damages will only cost 5% of future GDP! And in any case, future costs are just a question of current preferences. And the low carbon economy is actually very expensive, too. The cost benefit analysis is clear: there is no optimum level for stabilisation!
In fact, Mabey argues, neither narrative is setting the debate. Instead, it’s the ‘energy security tribe’ who run the dominant discourse and are actually shaping energy markets, with their story of pipeline politics and security of supply. As for price signals through emissions trading or climate policy, right now that signal can’t even be heard by markets over the much louder noise of energy market fundamentals…
