Yesterday, we heard from a physicist about economics. It was not a generally positive review of our discipline. Today, Chemistry World brings us scientists who, though it appears less than enthusiastic in some cases, suddenly find economics useful:
Economist’s review marks turning point, Chemistry World: Scientists have welcomed an economist’s review into the costs of climate change, which warns of global recession if greenhouse gas emissions are not stabilised.
A proper economic analysis was long overdue, providing independent support for the views of scientists accused of hyping up climate change, Chris Reay, National Environment Research Council (Nerc) research fellow at Edinburgh University, UK, told Chemistry World. ‘If this is the tipping point, I don’t mind if it comes from an economist,’ he said.
Thanks. We don't mind your help either. The statement refers to the Stern Review on the potential costs of global warming:
The government-commissioned report, carried out by former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, warns that the global economy could shrink by up to 20 per cent unless action is taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Stern estimates an R&D investment of one per cent of global GDP is needed.
‘The Stern Review finally closes a chasm that has existed for 15 years between the precautionary concerns of scientists, and the cost–benefit views of many economists,’ commented Michael Grubb, professor of climate change and energy policy at Imperial College London and the University of Cambridge, UK. And, said Grubb, it was encouraging that although Stern saw the problem as massive and urgent, it could be solved...