ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Climate change did not play a big role, it could be said, in the last general election, in fact it barely got a mention in between things like immigration, the Euro reform and the economy but we are facing a key moment according to Lord Stern.  He is a former World Bank chief economist who was commissioned you may remember by Tony Blair ten years ago to report on the economic impact of climate change.  He is now Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, the LSE and President of the British Academy.  The title of his new book gives a clue to what he’s about to say, it’s called Why Are We Waiting: the Logic, Urgency and Promise of Tackling Climate Change.  Lord Stern is with us now from Midhurst in West Sussex and a very good morning to you.  First of all, looking back to those ten years ago when you started that process, are things coming to pass that you were predicting then?  Was your research, your enquiry, robust?

LORD STERN:  I think it is robust but I think the experience of the last ten years has strengthened the conclusion that the costs of inaction are much bigger than the costs of action.  The reason for that is the emissions have gone on rising somewhat faster than we thought then, the science has looked even more worrying than we thought then so the risks and costs of inaction in my view have gone up.  On the other hand technology has moved remarkably quickly and the cost of solar PB has been plummeting, the cost of wind has been coming down, lots of new insulating materials, better ways of managing your domestic appliances so that they are more efficient and run at times when there is much less pressure on energy supply, all sorts of advances in technology, electric cars, plug in hybrids, it’s been much faster than we thought then so actually the costs of action in some ways have fallen.  So I think the main conclusion of the Stern Review as you say started ten years ago, has been robust and indeed has been strengthened by what we’ve seen over the last ten years.  Thank you mentioning the book, here it is Dermot!  

DM: Okay, a very nice little plug there but what role has the economic impact?  In the intervening years we had the great recession, almost a global recession in the years 2008, 9, 10 and even beyond, reaching right up to the present day, has that been the driving force behind the inaction you describe?

LORD STERN:  I think it has.  I think political decision makers around the world really missed an opportunity.  When you have got unemployed resources, interest rates on the floor, that’s the moment when you should be investing in the growth story of the future and the move to the low carbon economy is the growth story of the future, full of innovation, discovery and it will produce cities and beyond the cities which are liveable, less congested, less polluted, will be more bio-diverse so that was the moment really to push very strongly for investing in that growth story.  It is extremely attractive but it seems that our politicians were not strong enough to or clear enough to focus on that opportunity whilst they struggled with the recession.

DM: But it seems they’re still not doesn’t it?  Are you disappointed reading into this, I mean we’ve got this big climate change conference coming up at the end of the year in Paris and before that in actual fact by now nations around the world – and of course it needs global action – are meant to have submitted their intended nationally determined contribution plans, INDC’s, climate action plans in effect.  Only 35 have done so.

LORD STERN:  It is smaller than was hoped, I would absolutely agree with that but they cover a big part of the world’s emissions. I looked at the likely INDC’s or pledges or promises, with one or two of my colleagues at the LSE and it looks as if they are going to come in a good bit higher than would be necessary for a two degree path and it means that Paris has not only to recognise those contributions but it also has to put in place mechanisms for ramping up.  But I do think we will get an agreement, I think the political climate is moving in a better direction, business is pushing very strongly now across big parts of business, big parts of finance, that’s a really significant change over the last year or so.  They see the risks, the see the opportunities and above all China has changed and China is by far the biggest emitter.  China’s coal peaked last year, even though growth rates were around 7%, the use of coal has plateaued, I hope it’s peaked, is starting to come down.  China has changed radically and their 13th five year plan which will be revealed at the end of this year and is already pretty advanced, will contain strong moves in this direction and they will be embodied in what they offer in Paris.  So very promising moves in business, in China, I think Europe is starting to regain its focus on this but it is too slow, much too slow and that’s why I have called the book Why Are We Waiting?

DM: But there is still, Lord Stern, isn’t there, the fundamental question, the fundamental divide, given that it takes global action where the developing nations say to those already developed, well you burnt all the coal, oil, gas and whatever you liked to achieve economies you now have but you are now trying to tie one hand behind our back.  This requires a transfer of wealth, of technology or whatever else from developed nations to developing nations doesn’t it?

LORD STERN:  It will require support, there’s no doubt about that, from the rich nations but the big decisions are going to be taken in the developing nations.  They are now two-thirds of [inaudible], there is this great historical inequity that the rich countries did get rich on high carbon, they are responsible for around half of emissions or more emissions in the past but looking forward it is already two-thirds in the developing world and countries like China and Ethiopia and Mexico and Colombia are all recognising just how vulnerable they are to climate change and that the future of the world lies largely in their hands and that the alternative model of green growth is looking increasingly attractive.  That’s why investment in electricity capacity in the last year or so in the non-hydrocarbons has overtaken the hydrocarbons and that is largely driven by the developing world.  So they are changing, in some cases like China changing fast, but they quite rightly look for support in technology and finance from the rich world.  

DM: Does it ever keep you awake at night, Lord Stern, that there are some scientists who say well look, the horse might already have bolted.  The science is pretty inexact in terms of how much damage has already been done and, if I may mix my metaphors, whether the genie can still be put back in the bottle however much is done on carbon emissions now.  

LORD STERN:  Well I think it’s about managing risk, Dermot.  Risk can be bigger or risk can be smaller so if you are dealing with some dangerous thing like a potential plane crash you might not be able to eliminate the probability but you can certainly bring it down and that’s the challenge.  We have declared that two degrees, above two degrees, the science has declared that’s dangerous climate change, that’s two degrees average surface temperature relative to 19th century, they’ve declared that beyond that we run into the dangers of tipping points like the melting of the permafrost and the releasing of lots of methane, that’s one example, a very big example of a tipping point.  So it is going to be a struggle to hold to two degrees but it is still within our power if we act quickly and strongly.  Going much above that really is dangerous, we haven’t been at three degrees centigrade for three million years, homo sapiens has been around 250,000 and our civilisations date from the end of the last ice age which is only eight or nine thousand and we have fluctuated plus or minus one degree since then.  So we are already entering dangerous territory but we can radically reduce the risk. The metaphor of the genie out the bottle is a bad one, it’s about managing and bringing down the risks and we can do that by embarking on a path that’s much more attractive than the one we’ve been on.  

DM: A last quick thought, Lord Stern, on an entirely different matter here, I know you were involved in the England bid for the 2018 World Cup, have you got any thoughts about the current state of FIFA and how it might be sorted out?  

LORD STERN:  Well I was and it would have been wonderful if we had brought it to England.  I think that, at least I hope that, the tide is beginning to turn and there will be a general understanding that we can’t go on as we are.  Support for football in Africa and Asia is of enormous importance but surely we can do that without an organisation that appears to be as deeply corrupt as this one.  So I am hoping that Africa and Asia will stand up and say football can advance on our continents, it’s very important that it does but it’ll do it much better if we have a cleaner FIFA.  

DM: Great talking to you, Lord Stern, thank you very much indeed for your time there.