DEMOS

It's also odd to see the tacit denial of responsibility for climate change. It seems to be politicians' fault that the world is getting warmer, their fault for trying to think about solving climate issues, their fault for not doing enough, their fault that recycling helps, their fault that cars=pollution...A government cursed? All David Cameron has to do is fly (with assorted press) to the north pole and stand on a sled to be considered the politician most serious about climate change.

In 1995, Michael Porter blew into the environmental policy world saying that it good for competitiveness to be strict on environment. In 1999, a professorship (sponsored by 3M) in environmental economics was created at MIT. In 1999, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution described how environmental stewardship was also good business sense... I won't go on with the timeline, but you get the idea. Solutions exist, they just seem pretty impossible to implement. Will it be any different now? As Stern says "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.   The economic analysis must therefore be global, deal with long time horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at  centre stage, and examine the possibility of major, non-marginal change. " I hope he's right when he says that this study draws on new developments in the field. Anyone know if this is the case? It seems old news to me, though it is never a bad thing to have it stated again so powerfully. But what will it take to get all of us (to Pete's point) pulling in the same direction?

I can't help but put in another comment here. Stern but not shaken by George Marshall, Executive Director of the Climate Outreach Information Network. it nicely outlines the hypocrisy of our approaches. But I don't think this hypocrisy is intentional. On climate change in particular, we have not cracked that delicate algorithm for linking our individual behaviour to the social outcomes we want. We seem to be blaming everyone else - politicians, business etc - rather than working toward collective efficacy.

And a word from our friends across the pond in the environmental justice community (Rising Tide) that Stern has not gone far enough...

Obviously, this issue has generated a lot of press coverage today, appearing on the front pages of pretty much every major newspaper on the back of the Stern Report. I can't help but ask this question: Was everyone somehow unaware that there was a problem surrounding climate change? Everyone seemed so shocked that this is a very real problem with very real consequences. Hopefully this report will signal the beginning of some real action, rather than just a chin-wag about environmentally friendly soap.

I'd say the big advantage of this report is that it raises the issue in very hard-headed terms. This isn't just about altruism towards someone you'll never meet any more, it's about your job and your standard of living. I'd say environmentalism can only benefit from framing the debate in those terms.

Second point, Pete i reckon you're being a bit unfair. Photo-shoots on glaciers don't change policies, but they do help raise the profile of an issue.

Finally, i always get annoyed when people say things are 'too important for politics' - because politics is about values and (genuine) differences of opinion give voters a choice between those different value-sets. But if this really is a collective action problem (i.e everyone is agreed on what needs to happen but  too worried to make the first move), then perhaps it is time for saftey in numbers on this one. Cross-party commission to put together the climate change bill anyone?

Brown's stated economic objectives of growth and environmental care (in his response to the Stern report) are incompatible, seeing as economic growth is predicated on exploiting the earth's natural resources.  Why is it so difficult for politicians and others to envision a different socio-economic system that doesn't depend on this definition of growth?

As for Cameron, Monbiot echoes my sentiments.

I'm a bit exasperated by some of the responses to Stern. Let's take a look:

1. It doesn't go far enough. Well so what? As a single event, it's done more to catalyse political action on climate change than anything else I can remember. We're not going to get people from a lack of awareness to total awareness on one big leap.

2. Didn't we know all this already? Well yes, but we knew it in a big abstract way. Climate change is a giant living in the hills coming to visit the townsfolk. But Stern puts it in human terms - my house, my car, my life. That's why it succeeds -  because if I don't act, I now know what's going to happen to me.

3. Politicians aren't taking responsibilty. Actually, Cameron's done more than any other politician to put this issue on the agenda. No matter how sincere he's being, his cycling to work and wind turbine have raised people's consciousness - not least Gordon Brown's.

4. It's all well and good but we need a zero growth economy to make it happen. Nonsense. We just need to find new ways to make growth sustainable - that means making new things in new ways that don't use as much of our resources, or perhaps don't use any. Unless you're going to also have some sort of massive redistribution system, freezing growth would also mean severe restrictions on the ability of, say, Africa to get richer. Politicians find it hard to envisage a different system because they rely on economic growth to fund the welfare state and create an element of social justice.

Stop being so cynical and miserable. I think we'repast the tipping point on the environment. The UK will meet its Kyoto targets (although no one else will) and we're starting to do the right things. What's needed is a more concerted global effort to find new ways promoting progressive, sustainable growth.

when simon parker suggests that 'were starting to do the right things' i wonder.  i wonder why we still have 8.00-430 and 9.00-500 working hours whereby all our major towns and cities come to an engine revving standstill.  surely this is unnecessary.  why is joe pub buying 10 foot tv's that use double electricity and hot tubs that take 24 hrs to heat up.  it seems to me that this country wishes to defy that old cliche 'no pain no gain'  joe pub wants climate change to be solved without enduring any pain.