Straits Times 19 Apr 08;
Lord Nicholas Stern, who is the author of the Stern Report - a ground-breaking 2006 tome on the financial cost of climate change to the global economy - speaks to TANIA TAN and JESSICA CHEAM
# You've highlighted the need for a new global deal on climate change once the Kyoto Accord expires. What are some of your recommendations?
Climate change has to be solved internationally, not by any one country. So we have to get a global deal together where everybody takes action. It has to be effective, to cut greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050, to be as low cost as possible, and it has to be fair and equitable.
Climate change is a very inequitable phenomenon. Developed countries have caused the build-up of greenhouse gases until now, but it's the poor countries that will be hit the hardest.
On the other hand, the poor countries, under business-as-usual scenarios, will be generating the most greenhouse gases in the future.
If we want to cut the emissions, everybody has to be involved. If we don't, the world will enter very risky territory, with temperature increases which will transform the planet, lead to big movements in population, and result in conflict.
# How have businesses responded to the 2006 Stern Review, which warned that climate change could cost them billions?
I have been encouraged by many businesses around the world. Just in my own country, the Confederation of British Industry produced a very good plan which it published last October.
Businesses in other countries are also doing similar things. Many are constructive, but we need governments and businesses to move forward much faster than we are doing now.
# What role can Singapore play, if any, in combating climate change? Will it be meaningful?
Singapore could be a bridge between the rich and poor countries. Singapore has neighbours that are big emitters. I'm thinking particularly of Indonesia and its peat burning. I think Singapore could organise groups that could assist Indonesia in combating deforestation.
Singapore may be small in terms of population, but the example it sets could be very big.
What everybody admires about Singapore is its ability to get things done. So if Singapore commits itself to a low-carbon economy, I think we'd all be convinced that before long, there will BE a low-carbon economy in Singapore.
Solar energy, for example, is very promising. I suspect Singapore could take a lead in that.
Ultimately, it's not for me to indicate the way in which Singapore could set an example. The ingenuity of Singaporeans will determine that.
Finally, let me add that the world is made up of a lot of small nations. While we do have to get the big countries involved, all countries will have to be involved, including Singapore.
# Our politicians have made the case that being a manufacturing- and transport-heavy country, we indirectly take on the burden of developed countries when it comes to carbon emissions. Singapore's leaders say that's unfair. What are your thoughts on that?
We have to lower our emissions everywhere, regardless of which country. Some emissions come from production, some come from consumption. And if we buy a car, and buy petrol, even though that car and petrol may be produced somewhere else, we're still responsible for emissions. We're all responsible and we all have to cut back.
# How can countries reconcile economic growth with protecting the environment?
This is about low-carbon growth, not no growth. If we try to grow as we've been growing, we will undermine growth and we will actually stop growth. So low-carbon growth IS the growth option.
What we have to do is to find ways of getting to it at reasonable cost. The estimated cost is about 1 to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product per annum. That's not going to undermine growth.
We see that kind of thing in long-term movements in exchange rates. We have seen big increases in petrol and oil prices over the years.
We can deal with it without stopping growth.So this isn't about a trade-off between growth and climate responsibility. What I'm saying is, unless we do both, we will get neither. We have to collaborate along the way. But the competitiveness story, that you have to stop growth to do this, is simply wrong.
# How much do politics and national self-interest hinder the completion of a global deal on climate change?
Well, there will always be short-term interests trying to block change. For example, when cars came along, it undermined those who were involved in horses and carriages and carts.
I don't want to pretend that change takes place without dislocation or disruption. And, of course, there will be vested interests among those who are in businesses that are likely to be dislocated.
But we can't allow the short- term narrow interests of the few to undermine the larger interests of the many, and the whole world.
So we recognise that there are political difficulties, but they have to be overcome; we can't stop change taking place. In countries which do have a bigger adjustment cost, it is important that the rest of the world help them in dealing with it.
# What do you think is the biggest challenge in reaching a post-Kyoto agreement by the end of next year - a time by which all the world's countries are supposed to have reached an agreement?
What I'd like to see is the developing world taking the lead in designing the way these processes could work. If they do, I think the whole process will move much more quickly.
Currently, the rich countries come with propositions, they get battered back...
But it's the developing countries... that will be hit the fastest and hardest. The future lies in their hands and I would like to see them taking the lead in shaping this agreement.
# Would you write another review on climate change?
It took me a long time to convince them I didn't want to do it. I do think it's important, but... the Stern Review transformed my existence. I've been married for 40 years and to take on another report like that - the strain would be unacceptable. My life was taken over by this one and to take on another would be just too much.
SETTING A BIG EXAMPLE
'Singapore may be small in terms of population, but the example it sets could be very big. What everybody admires about Singapore is its ability to get things done. So if Singapore commits itself to a low-carbon economy, I think we'd all be convinced that before long, there will BE a low-carbon economy in Singapore.'
LORD NICHOLAS STERN on the role that Singapore can play
GROWTH REQUIRES RESPONSIBILITY
'This isn't about a trade-off between growth and climate responsibility. What I'm saying is, unless we do both, we will get neither. We have to collaborate along the way. But the competitiveness story, that you have to stop growth to do this, is simply wrong.'
LORD STERN on how to reconcile economic growth with protecting the environment
Related articles
'If Singapore can't go green, who can?' : Lord Stern
Sheralyn Tay, Today Online 11 Apr 08;
