Flawed Policies for Climate Action

Ruth Dixon has incisively and fearlessly rebutted the public position of a prominent climate alarmist.  She summarizes the argument that will be asserted again many times in the weeks ahead of Paris COP.  And then she stirs up the sand upon which this whole appeal is built.

The article is a review of the recent book by Nicholas Stern, a leading and longtime advocate for fossil fuel reduction treaties.  “Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change” by Nicholas Stern is reviewed by Ruth Dixon in the October 2015 edition of Journal of Economic Psychology.  It is an important statement deserving careful reading and dissemination. An advance copy of the text is here:

Click to access review-of-stern-2015.pdf

In the end, the problem is with the policies themselves:

“In assessing Stern’s avowedly biased book, readers must confront their own biases. Is Stern right to be so pessimistic about climate change and the inability of nations to build up resilience through economic development? Is he right to be so optimistic about the ability of governments to predict and manage change? If he is correct, we need more than ‘communication strategies’ to meet this challenge – we need arguments that do not rely on a selective presentation of the evidence, and solutions that take into account the physical, chemical and engineering challenges that our collective demand for energy requires. Governments regularly implement costly and unpopular policies if they are convinced that they will be effective. The lack of ‘action’ suggests that such policies are not (yet) available.”

In other words, even if you think there are damages to come from future warming, these policies are not a credible response.

There’s more at her blog:  “Stern’s book is not reliable on either science or policy.”

Bravo, Ruth Dixon.



  1. manicbeancounter · September 4, 2015

    Something that Stern and others overlook in their advocacy of constraining emissions to combat global warming is the “global” part of “Global Warming”. There are 200 countries in the world. Half the world’s population is emerging out of poverty at historically high rates. This good news is accompanied by and partially dependent upon, high rates of emissions growth. This means that even if all the rich OECD countries totally eliminate their emissions by 2050, global emissions will still be higher than in 1990. This global level was initial target for serious emissions reductions in the 2006 Stern Review. No amount of “action” by activists is going to change this situation.


  2. paullitely · September 13, 2015

    Global Carbon Dioxide and air pollution comes primarily from underdeveloped populations burning wood and cutting down carbon Dioxide recycling greenery. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
    No reduction in Global CO2 will make a difference without providing those populations with solar cooking and renewable power for heating.


  3. paullitely · September 13, 2015

    Global CO2 comes as much from cooking and heating fires that burn trees and wood as from developed populations.


    • Ron Clutz · September 13, 2015

      In her article, Ruth Dixon says this:

      “The type of small-scale solar PV he (Stern) describes is a good way to supply electricity
      for lights, phone and internet access to remote communities, but it is fanciful to suppose that such systems can provide enough power for cooking, which is the major use of such ‘biomass’.”


      • paullitely · September 15, 2015

        So, what’s to be done? Nothing. CO2 is rising fast but global temperatures are only rising when measured temperatures are adjusted. The only warming is in the adjustments. See other posts on this site. Deionizing CO2 is a witch hunt for political and economic gain. CO2 is beneficial up to ten times today’s levels. It makes plants grow very rapidly so they can absorb more and make oxygen and food.


      • Ron Clutz · September 15, 2015

        Agreed. It is a shame that humans, carbon-based life forms, are so scared of their own chemistry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s