The Stern Review was the big, 1200 page, report in which it was revealed – insisted perhaps – that climate change was a real problem that we needed to do something about. Sure, OK, some don;t believe it. But these folks obviously do:
A report from the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said there was no co-ordinated plan, with clear milestones, to achieve the legally binding goal to cut emissions by 100 per cent by 2050.
The UK set a target in 2019 to cut emissions to “net zero” by 2050 but, two years on, MPs warned the Government was not properly engaging with the public on the behaviour changes, such as eating less meat or replacing boilers or cars with cleaner alternatives.
The report said the Government would also have to engage more with local authorities, including ensuring they have the necessary resources to do their bit.
As much as 62 per cent of future reductions in emissions will rely on individual choices and behaviours, from day-to-day lifestyle choices on diet to big ticket purchases such as vehicles or heating systems.
MPs acknowledged that the Government intended to publish a “plethora of strategies” this year but said it was not yet ensuring that it was not simply shifting greenhouse gas pollution overseas.
The other thing the Stern Review said was that we cannot plan our way out of this. The reason being that planning was less economically efficient than markets, suitably prodded, at achieving whatever the goal is. The implication of that is that if we use planning, the less efficient method, then we’ll do less climate change aversion than if we use the more efficient one, markets suitably prodded.
The reason being that there’s a limit to what people will devote to any particular or specific activity or problem. At some cost of dealing with climate change folks will just say bugger it and let Flipper boil. This being something we all already agree upon because no one is seriously proposing that the world become net zero tomorrow afternoon. We all recognise that would be so vastly expensive that we’d not do it.
So, from the same source that we get the we must do something we gain the how we should do it too. Impose a carbon tax to prod the markets. Then keep every prodnose and pecksniff well away from any ability to plan anything.
At which point we get the assembled pecksniffs and prodnoses demanding to know why we’ve not given them the power to plan everything.
It’s almost as if they don’t understand the subject under discussion, isn’t it?