Stern

Review

From

Wikipedia

the

free

encyclopedia

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

Presented

October

Commissioned

by

Government

of

the

United

Kingdom

Authors

Nicholas

Stern

Media

type

Report

Subject

Effect

of

global

warming

on

the

world

economy

The

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

is

a

report

released

for

the

Government

of

the

United

Kingdom

on

October

by

economist

Nicholas

Stern

chair

of

the

Grantham

Research

Institute

on

Climate

Change

and

the

Environment

at

the

London

School

of

Economics

LSE

and

also

chair

of

the

Centre

for

Climate

Change

Economics

and

Policy

CCCEP

at

Leeds

University

and

LSE

The

report

discusses

the

effect

of

global

warming

on

the

world

economy

Although

not

the

first

economic

report

on

climate

change

it

is

significant

as

the

largest

and

most

widely

known

and

discussed

report

of

its

kind

The

Review

states

that

climate

change

is

the

greatest

and

widestranging

market

failure

ever

seen

presenting

a

unique

challenge

for

economics

The

Review

provides

prescriptions

including

environmental

taxes

to

minimise

the

economic

and

social

disruptions

The

Stern

Reviews

main

conclusion

is

that

the

benefits

of

strong

early

action

on

climate

change

far

outweigh

the

costs

of

not

acting

The

Review

points

to

the

potential

impacts

of

climate

change

on

water

resources

food

production

health

and

the

environment

According

to

the

Review

without

action

the

overall

costs

of

climate

change

will

be

equivalent

to

losing

at

least

of

global

gross

domestic

product

GDP

each

year

now

and

forever

Including

a

wider

range

of

risks

and

impacts

could

increase

this

to

of

GDP

or

more

also

indefinitely

Stern

believes

that

degrees

of

temperature

increase

is

a

real

possibility

The

Review

proposes

that

one

percent

of

global

GDP

per

annum

is

required

to

be

invested

to

avoid

the

worst

effects

of

climate

change

In

June

Stern

increased

the

estimate

for

the

annual

cost

of

achieving

stabilisation

between

and

ppm

CO

e

to

of

GDP

to

account

for

faster

than

expected

climate

change

There

has

been

a

mixed

reaction

to

the

Stern

Review

from

economists

Several

economists

have

been

critical

of

the

Review

for

example

a

paper

by

Byatt

et

al

describes

the

Review

as

deeply

flawed

Some

economists

such

as

Brad

DeLong

and

John

Quiggin

have

supported

the

Review

Others

have

criticised

aspects

of

Reviews

analysis

but

argued

that

some

of

its

conclusions

might

still

be

justified

based

on

other

grounds

eg

see

papers

by

Martin

Weitzman

and

Dieter

Helm

Contents

Summary

of

the

Reviews

main

conclusions

Background

Positive

critical

response

Unfavorable

critical

response

General

criticisms

Stern

report

misused

climate

change

study

Response

of

economists

Discounting

Inherent

discounting

Treatment

of

uncertainty

Future

consumption

will

be

higher

Improved

technology

Market

rates

General

comments

The

Yale

Symposium

The

costs

of

mitigation

Comparison

with

climate

damages

Ecological

Economic

Critique

Response

to

criticisms

Sterns

later

comments

See

also

External

links

Summary

of

the

Reviews

main

conclusions

The

executive

summary

states

The

benefits

of

strong

early

action

on

climate

change

outweigh

the

costs

The

scientific

evidence

points

to

increasing

risks

of

serious

irreversible

impacts

from

climate

change

associated

with

businessasusual

BAU

paths

for

emissions

Climate

change

threatens

the

basic

elements

of

life

for

people

around

the

world

access

to

water

food

production

health

and

use

of

land

and

the

environment

The

impacts

of

climate

change

are

not

evenly

distributed

the

poorest

countries

and

people

will

suffer

earliest

and

most

And

if

and

when

the

damages

appear

it

will

be

too

late

to

reverse

the

process

Thus

we

are

forced

to

look

a

long

way

ahead

Climate

change

may

initially

have

small

positive

effects

for

a

few

developed

countries

but

it

is

likely

to

be

very

damaging

for

the

much

higher

temperature

increases

expected

by

midtolate

century

under

BAU

scenarios

Integrated

assessment

modelling

provides

a

tool

for

estimating

the

total

impact

on

the

economy

our

estimates

suggest

that

this

is

likely

to

be

higher

than

previously

suggested

Emissions

have

been

and

continue

to

be

driven

by

economic

growth

yet

stabilisation

of

greenhouse

gas

concentration

in

the

atmosphere

is

feasible

and

consistent

with

continued

growth

Central

estimates

of

the

annual

costs

of

achieving

stabilisation

between

and

CO

e

are

around

of

global

GDP

if

we

start

to

take

strong

action

now

It

would

already

be

very

difficult

and

costly

to

aim

to

stabilise

at

CO

e

If

we

delay

the

opportunity

to

stabilise

at

CO

e

may

slip

away

The

transition

to

a

lowcarbon

economy

will

bring

challenges

for

competitiveness

but

also

opportunities

for

growth

Policies

to

support

the

development

of

a

range

of

lowcarbon

and

highefficiency

technologies

are

required

urgently

Establishing

a

carbon

price

through

tax

trading

or

regulation

is

an

essential

foundation

for

climate

change

policy

Creating

a

broadly

similar

carbon

price

signal

around

the

world

and

using

carbon

finance

to

accelerate

action

in

developing

countries

are

urgent

priorities

for

international

cooperation

Adaptation

policy

is

crucial

for

dealing

with

the

unavoidable

impacts

of

climate

change

but

it

has

been

underemphasised

in

many

countries

An

effective

response

to

climate

change

will

depend

on

creating

the

conditions

for

international

collective

action

There

is

still

time

to

avoid

the

worst

impacts

of

climate

change

if

strong

collective

action

starts

now

Background

On

July

the

Chancellor

of

the

Exchequer

Gordon

Brown

announced

that

he

had

asked

Sir

Nicholas

Stern

to

lead

a

major

review

of

the

economics

of

climate

change

to

understand

more

comprehensively

the

nature

of

the

economic

challenges

and

how

they

can

be

met

in

the

UK

and

globally

The

Stern

Review

was

prepared

by

a

team

of

economists

at

HM

Treasury

independent

academics

were

involved

as

consultants

only

The

scientific

content

of

the

Review

was

reviewed

by

experts

from

the

Walker

Institute

The

Stern

review

was

not

released

for

regular

peerreview

since

the

UK

Government

doesnt

undertake

peer

review

on

commissioned

reviews

Papers

were

published

and

presentations

held

that

outlined

the

approach

in

the

months

preceding

the

release

Positive

critical

response

The

Stern

Review

attracted

positive

attention

from

several

sectors

Pia

Hansen

a

European

Commission

Spokeswoman

said

doing

nothing

is

not

an

option

we

must

act

now

Simon

Retallack

of

the

UK

think

tank

IPPR

said

This

Review

removes

the

last

refuge

of

the

donothing

approach

on

climate

change

particularly

in

the

US

Tom

Delay

of

The

Carbon

Trust

said

The

Review

offers

a

huge

business

opportunity

Richard

Lambert

Director

General

of

the

Confederation

of

British

Industry

said

that

a

global

system

of

carbon

trading

is

urgently

needed

Charlie

Kronick

of

Greenpeace

said

Now

the

government

must

act

and

among

other

things

invest

in

efficient

decentralised

power

stations

and

tackle

the

growth

of

aviation

Asset

managers

FC

look

to

the

business

opportunities

and

say

this

is

an

unprecedented

opportunity

to

generate

real

value

for

our

clients

Brendan

Barber

General

Secretary

of

the

Trades

Union

Congress

was

optimistic

about

the

opportunities

for

industry

to

meet

demands

created

by

investment

in

technology

to

combat

climate

change

The

Prince

of

Wales

Corporate

Leaders

Group

on

Climate

Change

formed

by

of

UKs

leading

companies

shared

this

hope

Chairman

of

Shell

UK

James

Smith

expressed

the

hope

of

the

group

that

business

and

Government

would

discuss

how

Britain

could

obtain

first

mover

advantage

in

what

he

described

as

massive

new

global

market

On

November

then

Australian

Prime

Minister

John

Howard

responded

by

announcing

that

million

would

be

allotted

to

projects

to

help

cut

greenhouse

gas

emissions

while

reiterating

that

Australia

would

not

ratify

the

Kyoto

Protocol

Much

of

this

funding

was

directed

at

the

nonrenewable

coal

industry

British

Prime

Minister

Tony

Blair

stated

that

the

Review

demonstrated

that

scientific

evidence

of

global

warming

was

overwhelming

and

its

consequences

disastrous

if

the

world

failed

to

act

The

UK

Treasury

which

commissioned

the

report

simultaneously

published

a

document

of

favourable

comments

on

the

Review

Those

quoted

include

Paul

Wolfowitz

former

President

of

the

World

Bank

Claude

Mandil

Executive

Director

of

the

International

Energy

Agency

Kirit

Parikh

Member

Planning

Commission

Government

of

India

Adair

Turner

Former

Director

of

UK

Confederation

of

British

Industry

and

Economic

Advisor

to

Sustainable

Development

Commission

Sir

Rod

Eddington

Adviser

to

the

UK

Government

on

the

long

term

links

between

transport

and

economic

growth

and

former

chief

executive

of

British

Airways

Several

academic

economists

are

also

quoted

praising

the

Review

see

Response

of

economists

Unfavorable

critical

response

The

Stern

Review

has

received

various

critical

responses

Some

economists

have

argued

that

the

Review

overestimates

the

present

value

of

the

costs

of

climate

change

and

underestimates

the

costs

of

emission

reduction

Other

critics

have

argued

that

the

economic

cost

of

the

proposals

put

forward

by

Stern

would

be

severe

or

that

the

scientific

consensus

view

on

global

warming

on

which

Stern

relied

is

incorrect

By

contrast

some

argue

that

the

Review

emission

reduction

targets

are

too

weak

and

that

the

climate

change

damage

estimates

in

the

Review

are

too

small

General

criticisms

In

an

article

in

the

Daily

Telegraph

Ruth

Lea

Director

of

the

Centre

for

Policy

Studies

questions

the

scientific

consensus

on

climate

change

on

which

the

Stern

Review

is

based

She

says

that

authorities

on

climate

science

say

that

the

climate

system

is

far

too

complex

for

modest

reductions

in

one

of

the

thousands

of

factors

involved

in

climate

change

ie

carbon

emissions

to

have

a

predictable

effect

in

magnitude

or

even

direction

Lea

questions

the

longterm

economic

projections

made

in

the

Review

commenting

that

economic

forecasts

for

just

two

or

three

years

ahead

are

usually

wrong

Lea

goes

on

to

describe

the

problem

of

drawing

conclusions

from

combining

scientific

and

economic

models

as

monumentally

complex

and

doubts

whether

the

international

cooperation

on

Yohe

and

Tol

described

Leas

article

as

a

climate

sceptics

scattershot

approach

aiming

to

confuse

the

public

by

questioning

the

causal

role

of

CO

by

emphasising

the

complexity

of

making

economic

predictions

and

by

attributing

a

motive

for

Sterns

conclusions

Miles

Templeman

DirectorGeneral

of

the

Institute

of

Directors

said

Without

countries

like

the

US

China

or

India

making

decisive

commitments

UK

competitiveness

will

undoubtedly

suffer

if

we

act

alone

This

would

be

bad

for

business

bad

for

the

economy

and

ultimately

bad

for

our

climate

Prof

Bill

McGuire

of

Benfield

UCL

Hazard

Research

Centre

said

that

Stern

may

have

greatly

underestimated

the

effects

of

global

warming

David

Brown

and

Leo

Peskett

of

the

Overseas

Development

Institute

a

UK

thinktank

on

international

development

argued

that

the

key

proposals

in

relation

to

how

to

use

forests

to

tackle

climate

change

may

prove

difficult

to

implement

Radical

ideas

are

needed

not

only

at

the

level

of

understandings

but

also

of

forward

strategies

The

Stern

Review

is

much

stronger

on

the

former

than

the

latter

and

leaves

a

lot

of

questions

unanswered

on

implementation

particularly

the

downstream

practicalities

of

bringing

avoided

deforestation

into

climate

mitigation

efforts

Soon

after

publication

of

the

Stern

Review

former

Chancellor

of

the

Exchequer

Nigel

Lawson

gave

a

lecture

at

the

Centre

for

Policy

Studies

briefly

criticising

the

Review

and

warning

of

what

he

called

ecofundamentalism

In

Lawson

gave

evidence

before

the

House

of

Commons

Treasury

Select

Committee

criticising

the

Review

Environmental

writer

Bjørn

Lomborg

criticised

the

Stern

Review

in

OpinionJournal

Mr

Sterns

core

argument

that

the

price

of

inaction

would

be

extraordinary

and

the

cost

of

action

modest

falls

apart

when

one

actually

reads

the

tome

Despite

using

many

good

references

the

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

is

selective

and

its

conclusion

flawed

Its

fearmongering

arguments

have

been

sensationalized

which

is

ultimately

only

likely

to

make

the

world

worse

off

Reason

magazine

s

science

correspondent

Ronald

Bailey

describes

the

destructive

character

of

the

Stern

Reviews

policy

proposals

saying

that

Surely

it

is

reasonable

to

argue

that

if

one

wants

to

help

future

generations

deal

with

climate

change

the

best

policies

would

be

those

that

encouraged

economic

growth

This

would

endow

future

generations

with

the

wealth

and

superior

technologies

that

could

be

used

to

handle

whatever

comes

at

them

including

climate

change

So

hurrying

the

process

of

switching

from

carbonbased

fuels

along

by

boosting

energy

costs

means

that

humanity

will

have

to

delay

buying

other

good

things

such

as

clean

water

better

sanitation

more

and

better

food

and

Commenting

on

the

Reviews

suggested

increases

in

environmental

tax

the

British

Chambers

of

Commerce

have

pointed

to

the

dangers

to

business

of

additional

taxation

Jerry

Taylor

of

the

Cato

Institute

a

United

States

libertarian

thinktank

criticised

Sterns

conclusion

taking

a

calculation

by

himself

Sterns

investment

advice

makes

sense

only

if

you

think

that

warming

will

hammer

GDP

by

a

year

You

dont

gain

much

at

all

from

emission

cuts

however

if

you

think

GDP

will

only

drop

by

a

year

if

we

do

nothing

And

if

you

think

warming

will

only

cost

the

global

economy

of

GDP

every

year

then

Sterns

investment

advice

is

sheer

lunacy

In

the

BBC

radio

programme

The

Investigation

a

number

of

economists

and

scientists

argued

that

Stern

assumptions

in

the

Review

are

far

more

pessimistic

than

those

made

by

most

experts

in

the

field

and

that

the

Reviews

conclusions

are

at

odds

with

the

mainstream

view

Cox

and

Vadon

In

his

paper

on

the

Jevons

Paradox

which

states

that

improvements

in

energyefficiency

of

technologies

can

potentially

increase

greenhouse

gas

emission

Steve

Sorrel

concludes

with

A

prerequisite

for

all

the

above

is

a

recognition

that

rebound

effects

matter

and

need

to

be

taken

seriously

Something

is

surely

amiss

when

such

indepth

and

comprehensive

studies

as

the

review

overlook

this

topic

altogether

John

Bellamy

Foster

Brett

Clark

and

Richard

York

in

the

Ecological

Rift

give

considerable

attention

to

the

Stern

Review

noting

that

the

targets

of

ppm

imply

a

global

temperature

increase

of

at

least

C

well

beyond

what

climate

science

consider

dangerous

and

which

would

bring

the

earths

average

global

temperature

to

a

height

last

seen

in

the

middle

Pliocene

around

million

years

ago

p

They

posit

that

the

basis

for

such

high

targets

is

economics

pure

and

simple

p

that

is

lower

emissions

cuts

were

seen

by

the

Stern

Review

authors

as

prohibitive

destabilizing

capitalism

itself

p

All

of

this

signals

that

any

reduction

in

Stern

report

misused

climate

change

study

According

to

the

Sunday

Times

article

Climate

change

study

was

misused

the

Stern

report

misused

disaster

analysts

research

by

Robert

MuirWood

head

of

research

at

Risk

Management

Solutions

a

USbased

consultancy

The

Stern

report

citing

MuirWood

said

New

analysis

based

on

insurance

industry

data

has

shown

that

weatherrelated

catastrophe

losses

have

increased

by

each

year

since

the

over

and

above

changes

in

wealth

inflation

and

population

growthmovement

If

this

trend

continued

or

intensified

with

rising

global

temperatures

losses

from

extreme

weather

could

reach

of

world

GDP

by

the

middle

of

the

century

According

to

MuirWood

said

his

research

showed

no

such

thing

and

accused

Stern

of

going

far

Response

of

economists

Discounting

See

also

Economics

of

climate

change

mitigation

Discount

rates

One

of

the

issues

debated

among

economists

was

the

discount

rate

used

in

the

Review

Discounting

is

used

by

economists

to

compare

economic

impacts

occurring

at

different

times

Discounting

was

used

by

Stern

in

his

calculation

of

the

possible

economic

damages

of

future

climate

change

Marginal

climate

change

damages

were

calculated

for

a

businessasusual

greenhouse

gas

GHG

emissions

pathway

Residual

climate

change

damages

at

the

margin

were

also

calculated

for

other

emissions

pathways

especially

one

peaking

at

ppm

CO

e

GHG

concentration

There

are

four

main

reasons

commonly

proposed

by

economists

for

placing

a

lower

value

on

consumption

occurring

in

the

future

rather

than

in

the

present

future

consumption

should

be

discounted

simply

because

it

takes

place

in

the

future

and

people

generally

prefer

the

present

to

the

future

inherent

discounting

consumption

levels

will

be

higher

in

the

future

so

the

marginal

utility

of

additional

consumption

will

be

lower

future

consumption

levels

are

uncertain

improved

technology

of

the

future

will

make

it

easier

to

address

global

warming

concerns

Using

a

high

discount

rate

decreases

the

assessed

benefit

of

actions

designed

to

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

The

Stern

Review

did

not

use

a

single

discount

rate

but

applied

a

stochastic

approach

whereby

the

discount

rate

varied

with

the

expected

outcomes

reflecting

the

interaction

between

growth

and

the

elasticity

of

marginal

utility

in

line

with

Frank

Ramseys

growth

model

The

Stern

Reviews

average

discount

rate

for

climate

change

damages

is

approximately

which

at

the

time

of

the

Review

was

lower

than

that

used

in

most

previous

economic

studies

on

climate

change

However

accounting

for

risk

in

the

stochastic

framework

In

other

words

accounting

for

risk

means

a

greater

weight

is

applied

to

worst

case

outcomes

as

per

the

insurance

market

Inherent

discounting

Debate

over

the

Stern

Review

initially

focused

on

the

first

of

these

points

In

the

Review

Stern

used

a

social

discount

rate

based

on

the

Ramsey

formula

which

includes

a

term

for

inherent

discounting

also

called

the

pure

rate

of

time

preference

PTPrate

s

γ

η

g

where

s

is

the

social

discount

rate

γ

the

PTPrate

η

the

marginal

elasticity

of

utility

and

g

the

rate

of

growth

of

percapita

consumption

Dietz

p

Stern

accepts

the

case

for

discounting

but

argues

that

applying

a

PTPrate

of

anything

much

more

than

zero

to

social

policy

choice

is

ethically

inappropriate

His

view

is

supported

by

a

number

of

economists

including

Geoffrey

Heal

Thomas

Sterner

William

Cline

and

Brad

DeLong

Cline

wrote

a

book

on

global

warming

published

in

where

he

made

similar

ethical

choices

to

Stern

for

discounting

DeLong

echoing

Frank

Ramsey

and

Tjalling

Koopmans

wrote

My

viewwhich

I

admit

may

well

be

wrongof

this

knotty

problem

is

that

we

are

impatient

in

the

sense

of

valuing

the

present

and

nearfuture

much

more

than

we

value

the

distant

future

but

that

we

shouldnt

do

so

Hal

Varian

stated

that

the

choice

of

discount

rate

was

an

inherently

ethical

judgement

for

which

there

was

no

definitive

answer

William

Nordhaus

of

Yale

University

who

has

done

several

studies

on

the

economics

of

global

warming

criticised

the

Review

for

its

use

of

a

low

discount

rate

The

s

unambiguous

conclusions

about

the

need

for

extreme

immediate

action

will

not

survive

the

substitution

of

assumptions

that

are

more

consistent

with

todays

marketplace

real

interest

rates

and

savings

rates

Hence

the

central

questions

about

globalwarming

policyhow

much

how

fast

and

how

costlyremain

open

The

informs

but

does

not

answer

these

fundamental

questions

The

difference

between

Sterns

estimates

and

those

of

Nordhaus

can

largely

though

not

entirely

be

explained

by

the

difference

in

the

PTPrate

Previous

studies

by

Nordhaus

and

others

have

adopted

PTPrates

of

up

to

per

cent

implying

that

other

things

being

equal

an

environmental

cost

or

benefit

occurring

years

in

the

future

is

worth

about

half

as

much

as

the

same

benefit

today

Richard

Tol

argues

that

in

estimating

discounting

rates

and

the

consequent

social

cost

of

carbon

the

assumptions

that

must

be

made

about

the

remote

future

are

so

uncertain

that

they

are

essentially

arbitrary

Consequently

the

assumptions

made

dominate

the

results

and

with

a

low

discount

rate

the

social

cost

of

carbon

is

also

arbitrary

In

an

appearance

before

the

House

of

Commons

Treasury

Select

Committee

Stern

was

asked

about

the

discount

rate

used

in

the

Review

Stern

We

are

in

pretty

good

company

here

in

that

the

distinguished

economists

Solow

Sen

Keynes

Ramsey

and

all

kinds

of

people

have

adopted

the

approach

to

pure

time

discounting

that

we

have

adopted

It

is

not

particularly

unusual

John

Roemer

Humberto

Llavador

and

Joaquim

Silvestre

have

argued

that

an

analysis

of

the

problem

must

consider

both

the

ethical

and

economic

issues

associated

with

discounting

They

have

made

the

claim

that

high

rates

of

discounting

as

the

ones

proposed

by

Nordhaus

are

only

consistent

with

the

infinitelylivedrepresentativeagent

approach

to

economic

modelling

Intergenerational

justice

would

require

more

realistic

assumption

one

particular

view

is

what

they

call

the

sustainabilitarian

approach

which

seeks

to

maximise

present

consumption

subject

to

the

constraint

that

future

generations

enjoy

a

quality

of

life

at

least

as

good

as

that

enjoyed

by

the

current

generation

They

support

the

discount

factors

used

in

the

Stern

Treatment

of

uncertainty

Uncertainty

about

future

consumption

may

be

addressed

either

through

adjustments

to

the

discount

rate

or

by

replacing

uncertain

flows

of

consumption

with

certainty

equivalent

flows

Stern

adopted

the

latter

approach

but

was

criticised

by

Tol

and

Yohe

for

double

counting

a

claim

rejected

by

the

Stern

Review

team

Dietz

et

al

pp

Whilst

critical

of

Sterns

discounting

Martin

Weitzman

has

argued

that

standard

discounting

procedures

are

inherently

incapable

of

dealing

with

extreme

lowprobability

events

such

as

the

risk

of

catastrophic

climate

change

Future

consumption

will

be

higher

With

increasing

average

consumption

in

future

the

marginal

utility

of

consumption

will

decline

The

elasticity

of

the

marginal

utility

of

consumption

part

of

the

social

discount

rate

may

be

interpreted

as

a

measure

of

aversion

to

inequality

Partha

Dasgupta

has

criticised

the

Stern

Review

for

parametric

choices

that

he

argues

are

inadequately

sensitive

to

inequality

In

subsequent

debate

Stern

has

conceded

the

case

for

a

higher

elasticity

but

noted

that

this

would

call

for

much

more

extensive

redistribution

of

income

within

the

current

generation

Dietz

et

al

pp

Improved

technology

As

far

as

discounting

is

concerned

the

effects

of

improved

technology

work

through

increased

consumption

and

do

not

need

to

be

treated

separately

However

specification

of

an

optimal

response

to

climate

change

will

depend

on

assumptions

about

improvements

in

technology

and

the

extent

to

which

such

improvements

will

be

induced

by

policies

that

increase

the

cost

of

emissions

Market

rates

Both

supporters

and

opponents

of

Sterns

discount

rate

have

used

comparisons

with

market

rates

of

return

on

capital

to

justify

their

position

Robert

Mendelsohn

of

Yale

University

is

a

critic

of

the

Review

and

has

said

investments

in

mitigation

that

can

not

even

earn

a

positive

rate

of

return

will

be

worth

far

less

to

future

generations

than

those

same

dollars

invested

in

the

market

Placing

climate

change

before

investments

in

other

important

nonmarket

services

such

as

conservation

health

education

security

and

transportation

also

can

not

be

justified

in

the

name

of

future

generations

From

the

perspective

of

future

generations

it

is

in

their

interest

that

all

investments

earn

the

same

rate

of

return

The

ethical

justification

for

intentionally

overspending

on

selective

projects

with

low

rates

of

return

is

weak

indeed

Nordhaus

has

been

very

critical

of

the

Ramsey

zero

pure

time

preference

on

the

basis

of

utilitarian

ethical

stance

He

takes

a

strictly

market

based

view

of

intergenerational

projects

arguing

that

the

social

rate

of

time

preference

reflects

the

rate

of

return

observed

in

the

marketplace

Nordhaus

also

raised

his

view

that

the

present

generation

will

have

to

forgo

a

large

amount

of

consumption

now

for

the

benefit

of

future

generations

who

will

be

much

richer

than

the

present

generation

Dasgupta

argues

that

there

is

some

confusion

in

the

Stern

review

about

the

underlying

rationale

for

the

selection

of

the

Ramsey

parameters

He

states

that

the

review

mixes

both

market

returns

on

investment

with

parameters

selected

on

ethical

grounds

The

discount

rate

chosen

by

Stern

is

close

to

the

real

interest

rate

for

government

bonds

The

higher

rates

preferred

by

Sterns

critics

are

closer

to

the

weighted

average

cost

of

capital

for

private

investment

see

the

extensive

review

by

Frederick

et

al

According

to

Quiggin

the

difference

between

the

two

is

determined

by

the

equity

premium

Quiggin

says

that

there

is

no

generally

accepted

theory

accounting

for

the

observed

magnitude

of

the

equity

premium

and

hence

no

easy

way

of

determining

which

approach

if

either

should

be

regarded

as

the

appropriate

market

comparator

General

comments

HM

Treasury

have

issued

a

document

where

several

economists

are

quoted

praising

the

Stern

Review

including

Robert

Solow

James

Mirrlees

Amartya

Sen

Joseph

Stiglitz

and

Jeffrey

Sachs

Sachs

and

Stiglitz

have

also

written

favourable

articles

on

the

Review

Richard

Tol

an

environmental

economist

at

the

Economic

and

Social

Research

Institute

is

highly

critical

of

the

Stern

Review

and

has

said

that

If

a

student

of

mine

were

to

hand

in

this

report

the

Stern

Review

as

a

Masters

thesis

perhaps

if

I

were

in

a

good

mood

I

would

give

him

a

D

for

diligence

but

more

likely

I

would

give

him

an

F

for

fail

Cox

and

Vadon

There

is

a

whole

range

of

very

basic

economics

mistakes

that

somebody

who

claims

to

be

a

Professor

of

Economics

simply

should

not

make

Stern

consistently

picks

the

most

pessimistic

for

every

choice

that

one

can

make

He

overestimates

through

cherrypicking

he

double

counts

particularly

the

risks

and

he

underestimates

what

development

and

adaptation

will

do

to

impacts

Tol

has

referred

to

the

Stern

Review

as

populist

science

In

a

paper

published

in

Tol

showed

that

the

Stern

Reviews

estimate

of

the

social

cost

of

carbon

SCC

along

a

businessasusual

emissions

pathway

was

an

outlier

in

the

economics

literature

The

Stern

Review

differs

strongly

from

most

other

estimates

of

climate

change

costs

in

the

economics

literature

Harvard

economist

Martin

Weitzman

has

written

a

paper

on

the

Stern

Review

Weitzman

In

this

paper

Weitzman

described

himself

as

skeptical

in

regards

to

the

discount

rate

used

by

Stern

in

the

Reviews

formal

aggregated

assessment

of

climate

change

One

of

Weitzmans

conclusions

was

that

Stern

deserved

credit

for

increasing

public

awareness

on

the

dangers

of

climate

change

However

Weitzman

also

commented

that

in

my

opinion

Stern

deserves

a

measure

of

dis

credit

for

giving

readers

an

authoritativelooking

impression

that

seemingly

objective

bestavailablepractice

professional

economic

analysis

robustly

supports

its

conclusions

instead

of

more

openly

disclosing

the

full

extent

to

which

the

Reviews

radical

policy

recommendations

depend

upon

controversial

extreme

assumptions

and

unconventional

discount

rates

that

most

mainstream

economists

would

consider

much

too

low

According

to

a

paper

Yohe

and

Tol

the

Stern

Review

is

right

for

the

wrong

reasons

At

a

seminar

held

in

Cambridge

economist

Partha

Dasgupta

commented

on

the

Stern

Review

Dasgupta

p

described

the

Review

as

a

long

and

impressive

document

but

felt

that

the

authors

had

treated

the

issue

of

intergenerational

equity

via

the

social

discount

rate

cavalierly

Dasgupta

pp

accepted

the

Reviews

argument

for

a

PTPrate

of

but

did

not

accept

Sterns

choice

of

for

the

elasticity

of

marginal

utility

He

argued

this

point

by

calculating

a

saving

rate

of

based

on

the

Reviews

values

for

the

PTPrate

and

elasticity

of

marginal

utility

Dasgupta

stated

that

a

savings

rate

is

so

patently

absurd

that

we

must

reject

it

out

of

hand

The

calculation

by

Dasgupta

was

based

on

a

model

which

had

a

deterministic

economy

constant

population

and

no

technological

change

Dasguptas

calculation

was

later

cited

by

Berkeley

economist

Hal

Varian

Writing

in

the

New

York

Times

newspaper

Varian

commented

Sir

Parthas

strippeddown

model

leaves

out

uncertainty

technological

change

and

population

growth

but

even

so

such

a

high

savings

rate

is

totally

implausible

Varian

also

questioned

whether

or

not

it

was

ethical

for

the

current

generation

to

transfer

wealth

to

future

generations

via

investment

in

mitigation

who

given

Sterns

assumptions

would

be

much

wealthier

than

we

presently

are

Smith

responded

to

Dasguptas

criticism

of

the

Stern

Reviews

implied

savings

rate

She

showed

that

the

rates

of

PTP

and

risk

aversion

in

the

Stern

Review

are

consistent

with

saving

rates

of

rather

than

when

a

macroeconomic

model

with

the

production

function

actually

used

by

Stern

and

Nordhaus

is

used

According

to

Dietz

pp

Varians

analysis

had

apparently

confused

the

PTPrate

with

the

social

discount

rate

The

PTPrate

if

positive

discounts

the

welfare

of

future

generations

even

if

they

are

poorer

than

the

current

generation

The

social

discount

rate

used

by

Stern

however

accounts

for

the

possible

increased

wealth

consumption

of

future

generations

through

the

product

ηg

see

the

formula

cited

in

the

section

on

inherent

discounting

Terry

Barker

of

the

Tyndall

Centre

Climate

Change

Research

wrote

a

paper

Barker

supportive

of

the

Review

Barker

was

critical

of

how

some

economists

have

applied

costbenefit

analysis

to

climate

change

the

Stern

Review

considers

costbenefit

analysis

as

a

marginal

analysis

inappropriately

applied

to

a

nonmarginal

multidisciplinary

systemic

problem

p

Both

Stern

p

and

the

IPCC

Reports

after

take

a

multicriteria

approach

rather

than

a

narrowly

monetary

one

and

question

costbenefit

analysis

This

is

one

reason

for

the

intemperate

response

from

some

traditional

economists

to

the

Stern

Review

Eric

Neumayer

of

the

London

School

of

Economics

thought

that

the

Review

could

have

argued

for

emission

reductions

based

on

the

nonsubstitutable

loss

of

natural

capital

Neumayer

argued

that

the

real

issue

is

the

nonsubstitutable

loss

of

natural

capital

that

is

to

what

extent

climate

change

inflicts

irreversible

and

nonsubstitutable

damage

to

and

loss

of

natural

capital

Economists

define

natural

capital

as

the

multiple

and

various

services

of

nature

from

which

humans

benefit

from

natural

resources

to

pollution

absorption

and

environmental

amenities

Dieter

Helm

of

Oxford

University

was

critical

of

the

Reviews

analysis

but

accepted

its

conclusion

of

the

urgent

need

to

reduce

emissions

Helm

justified

this

on

the

grounds

that

future

damages

to

the

environment

would

probably

not

be

fully

compensated

for

by

increases

in

manmade

capital

The

draft

report

of

the

Garnaut

Climate

Change

Review

a

similar

study

conducted

in

Australia

in

by

Ross

Garnaut

broadly

endorsed

the

approach

undertaken

by

Stern

but

concluded

in

the

light

of

new

information

that

Stern

had

underestimated

the

severity

of

the

problem

and

the

extent

of

the

cuts

in

emissions

that

were

required

to

avoid

dangerous

climate

change

The

Yale

Symposium

In

a

symposium

was

held

at

Yale

University

on

the

Stern

Review

with

talks

by

several

economists

including

Nordhaus

and

Stern

Yale

Symposium

Stern

presented

the

basic

conclusions

of

the

Review

and

commented

on

some

of

the

criticisms

of

it

made

by

other

speakers

Chris

Hope

of

Cambridge

University

explained

how

the

damage

estimates

in

the

Review

were

calculated

Hope

designed

the

integrated

assessment

model

that

was

used

in

the

Review

Hope

explained

what

would

happen

to

the

Stern

Reviews

damage

estimates

if

they

were

made

using

different

assumptions

for

example

a

higher

discount

rate

Hope

also

pointed

to

the

assumptions

used

in

the

model

to

do

with

adaptation

In

his

talk

Nordhaus

criticised

the

fact

that

the

Stern

Review

had

not

been

subject

to

a

peerreview

and

repeated

earlier

criticisms

of

the

Reviews

discount

rate

William

Cline

of

the

Peterson

Institute

supported

the

Reviews

general

conclusions

but

was

uncomfortable

about

how

most

greater

than

of

the

Reviews

monetised

damages

of

climate

change

occur

after

Cline

noted

that

the

Reviews

large

costbenefit

ratio

for

mitigation

policy

allows

room

for

these

longterm

costs

to

be

reduced

substantially

but

still

support

aggressive

action

to

reduce

emissions

Robert

Mendelsohn

was

critical

of

the

way

the

Stern

justified

his

suggested

mitigation

policy

in

the

Review

Mendelsohn

said

that

rather

than

finding

an

optimal

policy

the

Review

presented

a

choice

of

policy

versus

nopolicy

Jeffrey

Sachs

of

Columbia

University

questioned

some

of

the

assumptions

used

in

Nordhauss

integrated

assessment

model

DICE

of

climate

change

Sachs

was

supportive

of

Sterns

cost

estimates

of

climate

change

mitigation

In

response

to

these

talks

Stern

accepted

Clines

comment

about

the

weighting

of

future

damages

and

said

that

the

weighting

of

these

damages

could

be

reduced

by

the

increasing

the

size

of

the

elasticity

of

marginal

utility

in

the

social

discount

rate

With

regards

to

criticisms

of

the

discount

rate

Stern

accepted

that

differences

of

opinion

could

exist

on

his

ethical

choice

for

the

PTPrate

Yale

Symposium

p

Other

comments

by

Stern

included

what

he

viewed

as

confusion

over

what

he

had

suggested

as

a

possible

level

for

a

carbon

tax

According

to

Stern

the

tax

will

not

necessarily

be

the

same

as

the

social

cost

of

carbon

due

to

distortions

and

uncertainties

in

the

economy

p

His

suggested

tax

rate

was

in

the

range

of

to

dollars

per

ton

of

carbon

Stern

did

not

accept

Mendelsohns

argument

that

the

Review

presented

a

choice

of

policy

versus

no

policy

Stern

commented

that

the

arguments

for

his

recommended

stabilisation

range

were

included

in

Chapter

of

the

Review

pp

The

costs

of

mitigation

Economists

have

different

views

over

the

cost

estimates

of

climate

change

mitigation

given

in

the

Review

Paul

Ekins

of

Kings

College

London

Treasury

Committee

has

said

that

Sterns

central

mitigation

cost

estimate

is

reasonable

but

economists

Robert

Mendelsohn

and

Dieter

Helm

have

commented

that

the

estimate

is

probably

too

low

According

to

Mendelsohn

the

Stern

Review

is

far

too

optimistic

about

mitigation

costs

stating

that

one

of

the

depressing

things

about

the

greenhouse

gas

problem

is

that

the

cost

of

eliminating

it

is

quite

high

We

will

actually

have

to

sacrifice

a

great

deal

to

cut

emissions

dramatically

Mendelsohn

Professor

Emeritus

of

Economics

at

Pepperdine

University

George

Reisman

has

said

that

Any

serious

consideration

of

the

proposals

made

in

the

Stern

Review

for

radically

reducing

carbon

technology

and

the

accompanying

calls

for

immediacy

in

enacting

them

makes

clear

in

a

further

way

how

utterly

impractical

the

environmentalist

program

for

controlling

global

warming

actually

is

The

fundamental

impracticality

of

the

program

of

course

lies

in

its

utterly

destructive

character

In

a

response

to

a

paper

by

members

of

the

Stern

Review

team

John

Weyant

of

Stanford

University

commented

on

how

the

cost

estimate

of

mitigation

used

in

the

Review

was

based

on

idealised

models

Mendelsohn

et

al

Weyant

wrote

that

his

own

high

shortrun

cost

projection

for

stabilisation

of

possibly

GDP

resulted

primarily

from

institutional

pessimism

rather

than

technological

pessimism

Comparison

with

climate

damages

Nobel

prize

winner

Kenneth

Arrow

has

commented

on

the

Stern

Review

in

the

Economists

Voice

Arrow

and

for

Project

Syndicate

Arrow

Critics

of

the

Stern

Review

dont

think

serious

action

to

limit

CO

emissions

is

justified

because

there

remains

substantial

uncertainty

about

the

extent

of

the

costs

of

global

climate

change

and

because

these

costs

will

be

incurred

far

in

the

future

However

I

believe

that

Sterns

fundamental

conclusion

is

justified

we

are

much

better

off

reducing

CO

emissions

substantially

than

risking

the

consequences

of

failing

to

act

even

if

unlike

Stern

one

heavily

discounts

uncertainty

and

the

future

Arrow

analysed

the

Stern

Reviews

conclusions

by

looking

at

the

Reviews

central

estimate

of

GHG

stabilisation

costs

of

GNP

and

highend

climate

damages

of

GNP

Arrow

pp

As

part

of

the

Ramsay

formula

for

the

social

discount

rate

Arrow

chose

a

value

of

for

the

marginal

elasticity

of

utility

while

in

the

Review

Stern

chose

a

value

of

According

to

Arrow

Sterns

recommended

stabilisation

target

passes

a

costbenefit

test

even

when

considerably

higher

PTPrate

up

to

around

than

Sterns

is

used

Arrow

acknowledged

that

his

argument

depended

on

Sterns

stabilisation

central

cost

Gary

Yohe

of

Wesleyan

University

noted

that

Sterns

estimates

of

businessasusual

climate

damages

were

given

in

terms

of

per

capita

consumption

equivalents

but

Sterns

costs

of

mitigation

were

given

in

terms

of

a

percentage

reduction

in

gross

world

product

Yohe

stated

that

the

two

different

measures

are

not

really

at

all

comparable

Yohe

commented

on

how

the

Review

gives

the

impression

that

all

climate

damages

can

be

avoided

through

the

investment

of

of

world

GDP

in

mitigation

This

however

would

still

lead

to

global

warming

as

per

the

Reviews

ppm

CO

e

mitigation

target

of

around

to

C

above

preindustrial

temperatures

Significant

portions

of

climate

damages

would

therefore

still

persist

with

Sterns

mitigation

target

To

measure

the

benefit

of

Sterns

mitigation

target

the

residual

climate

damages

from

mitigation

would

need

to

be

subtracted

from

Sterns

businessasusual

climate

damages

Ecological

Economic

Critique

The

main

criticisms

cited

above

concern

the

details

of

calculations

and

modelling

choices

within

an

orthodox

economic

framing

of

the

world

and

mostly

try

to

argue

against

substantive

greenhouse

gas

mitigation

Ecological

economists

accept

the

need

for

serious

action

but

reject

the

reasoning

of

economic

commensuration

of

costs

and

benefits

the

probabilistic

approach

to

uncertainty

and

the

application

of

a

utilitarian

intergenerational

calculus

Their

criticism

applies

equally

to

the

likes

of

Nordhaus

and

Tol

The

orthodox

economic

debate

is

seen

as

a

distraction

from

the

basic

ethical

issues

eg

discounting

instead

of

justice

A

more

fundamental

criticism

of

the

Stern

report

is

that

it

raises

a

series

of

problems

which

it

totally

fails

to

address

because

of

its

orthodox

approach

It

simultaneously

ignores

a

range

of

critical

literature

from

ecological

economics

and

environmental

ethics

which

challenges

such

orthodox

thinking

Stern

as

an

orthodox

economist

squeezes

all

matters

and

concepts

into

a

narrow

mathematical

formalism

which

heterodox

economists

such

as

Tony

Lawson

point

out

fails

to

address

economic

and

social

reality

In

conventional

costbenefit

analysis

biodiversity

and

ecosystem

services

that

are

not

valued

as

losses

are

difficult

to

quantify

Neumayer

argues

that

the

real

issue

is

nonsubstitutable

loss

of

natural

capital

to

what

extent

climate

change

inflicts

irreversible

and

nonsubstitutable

damage

to

and

loss

of

natural

capital

For

example

it

would

be

difficult

to

quantify

the

loss

of

coral

reefs

biodiversity

loss

or

species

extinction

Dietz

points

out

that

in

many

Integrated

Assessment

Models

IAMs

health

and

ecosystem

impacts

are

not

included

because

the

monetary

valuation

of

these

impacts

is

speculative

and

uncertain

Dasgupta

also

points

out

most

model

do

not

consider

natural

capital

Although

recent

studies

on

ecosystem

services

have

made

gains

in

monetising

the

value

of

ecosystems

more

recent

studies

on

ecosystem

services

suggest

the

Stern

Review

underestimates

the

need

for

mitigation

action

as

it

is

difficult

for

models

to

quantify

the

collapse

of

ecosystem

services

under

climate

change

Thus

ecological

economist

Clive

Spash

has

questioned

whether

the

report

is

nothing

more

than

an

exercise

in

rhetoric

Spash

notes

that

a

range

of

serious

problems

challenging

economic

analysis

is

raised

or

mentioned

in

the

report

including

strong

uncertainty

incommensurability

plural

values

nonutilitarian

ethics

rights

distributional

inequity

poverty

and

treatment

of

future

generations

How

then

can

this

report

acknowledging

so

many

of

those

aspects

of

climate

change

that

render

orthodox

economic

analysis

unsuitable

for

generating

policy

recommendations

go

ahead

to

conduct

a

global

costbenefit

calculation

based

on

microeconomic

theory

and

make

that

the

foundation

for

its

policy

recommendations

Spash

has

argued

that

issues

are

suppressed

and

sidelined

in

a

careful

and

methodical

manner

with

the

pretense

they

have

Besides

perpetuating

myths

this

diverts

attention

away

from

alternative

approaches

away

from

ethical

debates

over

harming

the

innocent

the

poor

and

future

generations

and

away

from

the

fundamental

changes

needed

to

tackle

the

very

real

and

serious

problems

current

economic

systems

pose

for

environmental

systems

In

addition

the

policy

recommendation

of

carbon

trading

is

seen

as

deeply

flawed

for

also

failing

to

take

account

of

social

ecological

and

economic

reality

Response

to

criticisms

The

Stern

Review

team

have

responded

to

criticisms

of

the

Review

in

a

number

of

papers

In

these

papers

they

reassert

their

view

that

early

and

strong

action

on

climate

change

is

necessary

The

case

for

strong

and

urgent

action

set

out

in

the

Review

is

based

first

on

the

severe

risks

that

the

science

now

identifies

together

with

the

additional

uncertainties

that

it

points

to

but

that

are

difficult

to

quantify

and

second

on

the

ethics

of

the

responsibilities

of

existing

generations

in

relation

to

succeeding

generations

It

is

these

two

things

that

are

crucial

risk

and

ethics

Different

commentators

may

vary

in

their

emphasis

but

it

is

the

two

together

that

are

crucial

Jettison

either

one

and

you

will

have

a

much

reduced

programme

for

actionand

if

you

judge

risks

to

Members

of

the

Stern

Review

team

have

also

given

several

talks

that

have

covered

criticisms

of

the

Review

A

talk

given

by

Dimitri

Zenghelis

at

the

Tyndall

Centre

looked

at

criticisms

of

the

Review

and

presented

an

overview

of

its

main

findings

In

an

official

letter

Joan

Ruddock

MP

of

the

UK

Government

dismisses

the

criticisms

of

the

Review

made

by

several

economists

which

in

her

view

show

a

fundamental

misunderstanding

of

the

role

of

formal

highly

aggregated

economic

modelling

in

evaluating

a

policy

issue

Sterns

later

comments

In

April

Stern

said

that

the

severity

of

his

findings

were

vindicated

by

the

IPCC

report

and

admitted

that

in

the

Stern

Review

We

underestimated

the

risks

we

underestimated

the

damage

associated

with

temperature

increases

and

we

underestimated

the

probabilities

of

temperature

increases

In

June

Stern

said

that

because

climate

change

is

happening

faster

than

predicted

the

cost

to

reduce

carbon

would

be

even

higher

of

about

of

GDP

instead

of

the

in

the

original

report

In

an

interview

at

the

World

Economic

Forum

Stern

said

Looking

back

I

underestimated

the

risks

The

planet

and

the

atmosphere

seem

to

be

absorbing

less

carbon

than

we

expected

and

emissions

are

rising

pretty

strongly

Some

of

the

effects

are

coming

through

more

quickly

than

we

thought

then

in

the

Review

He

now

believes

we

are

on

track

for

something

like

four

degrees

See

also

Climate

change

in

the

United

Kingdom

Avoiding

Dangerous

Climate

Change

Economics

of

global

warming

Garnaut

Climate

Change

Review

Global

warming

controversy

Politics

of

global

warming

World

Energy

Outlook

Prosperity

Without

Growth

References

Francis

Cairncross

October

Time

to

get

Stern

on

climate

change

The

First

Post

Archived

from

the

original

on

September

a

b

Stern

N

Stern

Review

on

The

Economics

of

Climate

Change

prepublication

edition

Executive

Summary

HM

Treasury

London

Archived

from

the

original

on

January

Retrieved

January

a

b

Stern

N

Summary

of

Conclusions

Executive

summary

short

PDF

Stern

Review

Report

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

prepublication

edition

HM

Treasury

Retrieved

April

Peston

Robert

October

Reports

stark

warning

on

climate

BBC

News

a

b

Jowit

Juliette

Wintour

Patrick

June

Cost

of

tackling

global

climate

change

has

doubled

warns

Stern

The

Guardian

London

Tol

RSJ

and

GYohe

A

Review

of

the

Stern

Review

World

Economics

a

b

Nordhaus

W

D

A

Review

of

the

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Journal

of

Economic

Literature

doi

Byatt

I

et

al

The

Stern

Review

A

Dual

Critique

Part

II

Economic

Aspects

PDF

World

Economics

a

b

c

J

Bradford

DeLong

December

Do

Unto

Others

Grasping

Reality

with

a

Sharp

Beak

Blog

Retrieved

March

a

b

c

d

Quiggin

John

December

Stern

and

the

critics

on

discounting

PDF

unpublished

paper

JohnQuiggincom

Archived

from

the

original

PDF

on

January

Retrieved

March

a

b

c

Weitzman

ML

A

Review

of

the

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

PDF

Journal

of

Economic

Literature

doi

This

paper

is

also

available

PDF

Archived

September

at

the

Wayback

Machine

from

Weitzmans

website

with

the

alternative

title

The

Stern

Review

of

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

a

b

c

Helm

D

Climatechange

policy

why

has

so

little

been

achieved

PDF

Oxford

Review

of

Economic

Policy

doi

Retrieved

September

Background

to

Stern

Review

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

London

HM

Treasury

July

Archived

from

the

original

on

September

Retrieved

April

Walker

Institute

contribution

to

the

Stern

Review

Walker

Institute

Retrieved

August

a

b

Stern

Sir

Nicolas

February

Reaction

to

the

Panelists

Yale

Symposium

on

the

Stern

Review

PDF

Yale

Center

for

the

Study

of

Globalization

pp

a

b

c

d

e

f

Expert

reaction

to

Stern

Review

BBC

October

Stern

message

maps

out

way

forward

on

climate

change

says

FC

Press

release

FC

Asset

Management

October

Retrieved

April

Barber

Brendan

October

TUC

comment

on

the

Stern

review

Trades

Union

Congress

Retrieved

April

a

b

Muspratt

Caroline

Seawright

Stephen

October

Amber

alert

over

green

taxes

The

Daily

Telegraph

London

Retrieved

May

BBC

October

Climate

change

fight

cant

wait

BBC

News

Retrieved

April

a

b

Comments

on

the

Stern

Review

by

leading

economists

PDF

HM

Treasury

Ruth

Lea

October

Just

another

excuse

for

higher

taxes

London

Telegraph

Yohe

Gary

W

Tol

Richard

S

J

March

Report

on

Reports

The

Stern

Review

Implications

for

Climate

Change

Environment

Magazine

Retrieved

August

Brown

David

Peskett

Leo

December

The

challenge

of

putting

Sterns

prescriptions

into

practice

ODI

Weblog

Nigel

Lawson

November

The

Economics

and

Politics

of

Climate

Change

An

Appeal

to

Reason

Centre

for

Policy

Studies

Archived

from

the

original

on

September

House

of

Commons

Treasury

Select

Committee

Minutes

of

Evidence

UK

Parliament

website

January

Retrieved

September

Bjørn

Lomborg

November

Stern

Review

The

dodgy

numbers

behind

the

latest

warming

scare

The

Wall

Street

Journal

Stern

Measures

Reason

Magazine

November

Kollewe

J

October

Business

sees

red

over

green

tax

onslaught

The

Independent

London

Retrieved

September

Taylor

J

November

Global

Warming

Costs

Benefits

Cato

Institute

Blog

a

b

c

Cox

S

R

Vadon

January

Running

the

rule

over

Sterns

numbers

BBC

News

Retrieved

June

Sorrel

Steve

April

Jevons

Paradox

revisited

The

evidence

for

backfire

from

improved

energy

efficiency

Energy

Policy

doi

John

Bellamy

Foster

Brett

Clark

and

Richard

York

The

Ecological

Rift

Capitalisms

War

on

the

Earth

Monthly

Review

Press

a

b

Leake

Jonathan

January

Climate

change

study

was

misused

The

Sunday

Times

London

Archived

from

the

original

on

January

Retrieved

January

LORD

STERNS

report

on

climate

change

which

underpins

government

policy

has

come

under

fire

from

a

disaster

analyst

who

says

the

research

he

contributed

was

misused

Robert

MuirWood

head

of

research

at

Risk

Management

Solutions

a

USbased

consultancy

said

the

Stern

report

misquoted

his

work

to

suggest

a

firm

link

between

global

warming

and

the

frequency

and

severity

of

disasters

such

as

floods

and

hurricanes

Arrow

KJ

et

al

Intertemporal

Equity

Discounting

and

Economic

Efficiency

In

Climate

Change

Economic

and

Social

Dimensions

of

Climate

Change

PDF

Cambridge

University

Press

Archived

from

the

original

PDF

on

May

Retrieved

May

Stern

N

Box

The

social

cost

of

carbon

and

stabilisation

Towards

a

Goal

for

ClimateChange

Policy

PDF

Stern

Review

Report

on

the

Economics

of

Climate

Change

prepublication

edition

Prepublication

PDF

edition

HM

Treasury

Print

version

Cambridge

University

Press

p

Retrieved

May

a

b

c

d

Dietz

S

May

A

longrun

target

for

climate

policy

the

Stern

Review

and

its

critics

supporting

research

for

the

UK

Committee

on

Climate

Changes

inaugural

report

Building

a

LowCarbon

Economy

the

UKs

Contribution

to

Tackling

Climate

Change

PDF

Simon

Dietzs

homepage

Retrieved

May

a

b

Yale

Symposium

February

Yale

Symposium

on

the

Stern

Review

PDF

Yale

Center

for

the

Study

of

Globalization

Yale

University

Retrieved

May

Heal

G

April

Climate

economics

A

metareview

and

some

suggestions

NBER

Working

Paper

PDF

The

National

Bureau

of

Economic

Research

Archived

from

the

original

PDF

on

May

Retrieved

May

Cline

W

January

Comments

on

the

Stern

Review

Peter

G

Peterson

Institute

for

International

Economics

Retrieved

May

Varian

Hal

R

December

Recalculating

the

Costs

of

Global

Climate

Change

The

New

York

Times

Retrieved

May

There

is

no

definitive

answer

to

this

question

because

it

is

inherently

an

ethical

judgment

that

requires

comparing

the

wellbeing

of

different

people

those

alive

today

and

those

alive

in

or

years

Tol

RSJ

G

Yohe

The

Stern

Review

A

Deconstruction

Working

Papers

Research

Unit

Sustainability

and

Global

Change

Hamburg

University

Anthoff

David

Tol

Richard

S

J

Yohe

Gary

W

Discounting

for

Climate

Change

Economics

Economics

EJournal

doi

Besides

these

broad

insights

a

number

of

specific

results

emerge

as

well

First

with

a

very

low

discount

rate

the

social

cost

of

carbon

is

arbitrary

We

know

this

because

the

estimate

does

not

converge

as

the

time

horizon

expands

It

follows

that

assumption

about

the

remote

future

dominate

the

results

and

since

these

assumptions

are

so

uncertain

they

are

essentially

arbitrary

House

of

Commons

Treasury

Select

Committee

January

Climate

change

and

the

Stern

Review

the

implications

for

Treasury

policy

Fourth

Report

of

UK

Parliament

website

Retrieved

September

Roemer

JE

December

The

ethics

of

distribution

in

a

warming

planet

PDF

Retrieved

September

a

b

Dietz

S

et

al

January

Reflections

on

the

Stern

Review

A

Robust

Case

for

Strong

Action

to

Reduce

the

Risks

of

Climate

Change

PDF

World

Economics

Retrieved

June

Check

date

values

in

date

help

Dasgupta

P

December

Comments

on

the

Stern

Reviews

Economics

of

Climate

Change

PDF

a

b

Mendelsohn

R

T

Sterner

M

Persson

and

JP

Weyant

July

Comments

on

Simon

Dietz

and

Nicholas

Sterns

Why

Economic

Analysis

Supports

Strong

Action

on

Climate

Change

A

Response

to

the

Stern

Reviews

Critics

Review

of

Environmental

Economics

and

Policy

doi

Frederick

SW

G

Loewenstein

and

T

ODonoghue

Time

Discounting

and

Time

Preference

A

Critical

Review

Journal

of

Economic

Literature

doi

Sachs

J

February

Moving

Beyond

Kyoto

Scientific

American

Retrieved

August

Stiglitz

JE

A

Cool

Calculus

of

Global

Warming

Project

Syndicate

Retrieved

August

Tol

Richard

January

EU

makes

grandiose

gestures

but

climate

is

all

that

changes

Sunday

Business

Post

See

also

Tol

RSJ

The

Social

Cost

of

Carbon

Trends

Outliers

and

Catastrophes

Economics

the

OpenAccess

OpenAssessment

EJournal

Retrieved

August

Tol

chose

to

omit

two

of

Sterns

SCC

estimates

The

omitted

SCC

estimates

are

both

associated

with

emissions

pathways

leading

to

a

stabilisation

of

GHG

concentrations

one

at

ppm

CO

e

and

the

other

ppm

p

of

this

source

Adapted

from

a

portion

of

Figure

in

Tol

and

Yohe

A

Review

of

the

Stern

Review

World

Economics

Weitzman

p

Weitzman

p

Yohe

G

RSJ

Tol

Report

on

Reports

The

Stern

Review

Implications

for

Climate

Change

Environment

doi

Dasgupta

P

December

Comments

on

the

Stern

Reviews

Economics

of

Climate

Change

PDF

Website

of

Sir

Partha

Dasgupta

FBA

FRS

Frank

Ramsey

Professor

Emeritus

of

Economics

Cambridge

university

Retrieved

May

Dasguptas

comments

from

this

seminar

were

later

published

in

the

following

paper

Dasgupta

P

January

Commentary

The

Stern

Reviews

Economics

of

Climate

Change

PDF

National

Institute

Economic

Review

London

Sage

Publications

doi

Retrieved

May

Varian

HR

December

Recalculating

the

Costs

of

Global

Climate

Change

This

version

Website

of

Hal

R

Varian

emeritus

professor

in

the

School

of

Information

the

Haas

School

of

Business

and

the

Department

of

Economics

at

the

University

of

California

at

Berkeley

Also

published

as

a

column

in

the

New

York

Times

Retrieved

May

Smith

K

October

Saving

the

World

but

Saving

Too

Much

Pure

Time

Preference

and

Saving

Rates

in

Integrated

Assessment

Modelling

Environmental

Economics

Research

Hub

Research

Report

No

PDF

The

Crawford

School

of

Economics

and

Government

Australian

National

University

Canberra

Australia

ISSN

Retrieved

May

Smiths

work

is

also

available

as

KSmith

Stern

Climate

Policy

and

Saving

Rates

Climate

Policy

Barker

T

August

The

economics

of

avoiding

dangerous

climate

change

An

editorial

essay

on

The

Stern

Review

doi

Retrieved

May

Neumayer

E

A

Missed

Opportunity

The

Stern

Review

On

Climate

Change

Fails

to

Tackle

the

Issue

of

NonSubstitutable

Loss

of

Natural

Capital

PDF

Global

Environmental

Change

doi

Retrieved

September

Treasury

Committee

January

Minutes

of

Evidence

taken

before

the

Treasury

Committee

Tuesday

January

Professor

Paul

Ekins

Head

of

Environment

Group

Policy

Studies

Institute

Reply

to

Question

In

Climate

change

and

the

Stern

Review

the

implications

for

Treasury

policy

Produced

by

the

UK

House

of

Commons

Treasury

Select

Committee

The

fourth

report

of

the

session

UK

Parliament

website

Retrieved

June

Britains

Stern

Review

on

Global

Warming

It

Could

Be

Environmentalisms

Swan

Song

capitalismnet

November

Arrow

KJ

Global

Climate

Change

A

Challenge

to

Policy

Economists

Voice

doi

Arrow

KJ

December

The

Case

for

Mitigating

Greenhouse

Gas

Emissions

Project

Syndicate

Retrieved

April

Yohe

G

Some

thoughts

on

the

damage

estimates

presented

in

the

Stern

ReviewAn

Editorial

PDF

The

Integrated

Assessment

Journal

Retrieved

April

Spash

C

L

Greenhouse

Economics

Value

and

Ethics

London

Routledge

a

b

Funtowicz

S

O

and

J

R

Ravetz

The

worth

of

a

songbird

Ecological

economics

as

a

postnormal

science

Ecological

Economics

Spash

C

L

Understanding

climate

change

Need

for

new

economic

thought

Economic

and

Political

Weekly

Spash

C

L

Problems

in

economic

assessments

of

climate

change

with

attention

to

the

USA

Frontiers

in

Environmental

Valuation

and

Policy

J

Erickson

and

J

Gowdy

Cheltenham

UKNorthampton

MA

USA

Edward

Elgar

Publishing

Ltd

Daily

G

C

P

R

Ehrlich

H

A

Mooney

and

A

H

Ehrlich

Greenhouse

economics

Learn

before

you

leap

Ecological

Economics

Spash

C

L

Double

and

beyond

Benefits

costs

and

compensation

Ecological

Economics

Spash

C

L

Economics

ethics

and

longterm

environmental

damages

Environmental

Ethics

Lawson

T

Economics

Reality

London

Routledge

Neumayer

A

missed

opportunity

the

Stern

review

on

climate

change

fails

to

tackle

the

issue

of

nonsubstitutable

loss

of

natural

capital

Dietz

et

al

Reflections

on

the

Stern

Review

Dasgupta

P

Discounting

Climate

change

Climate

Impacts

on

Ecosystems

Climate

Change

US

EPA

epagov

Spash

C

L

The

economics

of

climate

change

impacts

à

la

Stern

Novel

and

nuanced

or

rhetorically

restricted

Ecological

Economics

Spash

C

L

Fallacies

of

economic

growth

in

addressing

environmental

losses

Human

induced

climatic

change

Newsletter

of

the

Australia

New

Zealand

Society

for

Ecological

Economics

ANZSEEMay

Spash

C

L

July

The

brave

new

world

of

carbon

trading

New

Political

Economy

Taylor

and

Francis

Online

doi

Stern

Team

Additional

papers

and

Presentations

by

Lord

Stern

UK

Office

of

Climate

Change

Archived

from

the

original

on

March

Retrieved

May

Dietz

S

D

Anderson

N

Stern

C

Taylor

and

D

Zenghelis

AprilJune

Right

for

the

Right

Reasons

A

final

rejoinder

on

the

Stern

Review

PDF

World

Economics

Retrieved

May

Tyndall

Centre

for

Climate

Change

Research

February

Beyond

Stern

Financing

international

investment

in

low

carbon

technologies

and

projects

Archived

from

the

original

on

January

Retrieved

May

Ruddock

J

March

Letter

of

Joan

Ruddock

MP

to

Andrew

Tyrie

MP

PDF

Retrieved

September

Adam

D

April

I

underestimated

the

threat

says

Stern

The

Guardian

London

Retrieved

August

Harvey

Fiona

Pickard

Jim

April

Stern

takes

bleaker

view

on

warming

Financial

Times

London

Archived

from

on

April

Retrieved

April

Heather

Stewart

Larry

Elliott

January

Nicholas

Stern

I

got

it

wrong

on

climate

change

its

far

far

worse

The

Guardian

London

Retrieved

January

Further

reading

Special

Topic

The

Stern

Review

Debate

August

doi

ISSN

Retrieved

August

Howarth

RB

April

Policy

Brief

No

Discounting

Uncertainty

and

Climate

Change

PDF

Economics

for

Equity

and

the

Environment

website

Retrieved

May

Jensen

PH

and

E

Webster

Australian

Economic

Review

External

links

Full

text

of

the

Stern

Review

from

HM

Treasury

Full

text

of

the

Stern

Review

archived

on

Wayback

Machine

The

Economics

of

Climate

Change

The

Stern

Review

Economistzoom

How

to

value

a

grandchild

Dec

Summary

of

key

findings

from

the

report

Gail

Whitemans

findings

of

economic

costs

of

arctic

methane

release

added

to

the

Stern

review

The

Stern

gang

linked

index

of

resources

Felix

Ekardt

The

Limits

to

Climate

Economics

Grantham

Research

Institute

profile

page

of

Nicholas

Stern

Centre

for

Climate

Change

Economics

and

Policy

Videos

The

RIBA

Trust

Annual

Lecture

Lord

Stern

part

of

the

International

Dialogues

Architecture

and

Climate

Change

talks

series

The

Economics

of

Climate

Change

Risk

Ethics

and

a

Global

Deal

Lecture

given

at

Princeton

University

by

Nicholas

Stern

January

Climate

Change

The

Economics

of

and

Prospects

for

a

Global

Deal

Lecture

given

at

MIT

by

Nicholas

Stern

November

Yale

Symposium

on

the

Stern

Review

February

Figures

used

in

the

Symposium

are

available

here

In

the

media

November

The

Economist

Stern

warning

November

Der

Spiegel

The

Day

the

Climate

Changed

January

BBC

Chrysler

Boss

says

Stern

Report

is

based

on

dubious

economics

June

Allianz

Knowledge

Stern

Review

Update

An

interview

with

Alex

Bowen

senior

economist

on

the

Stern

Review

team

v

t

e

Global

warming

and

climate

change

Authority

control

GND

VIAF

WorldCat

Identities

via

VIAF

Economy

portal

Environment

portal

Global

warming

portal

Categories

Climate

change

assessment

and

attribution

Reports

of

the

United

Kingdom

government

in

the

United

Kingdom

Lowcarbon

economy

Economics

and

climate

change

in

the

environment

B I O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O