Right for the Right Reasons A final rejoinder on the Stern Review

摘要: Four authors of the Stern Review on Economics Climate Change, and Dennis Anderson who provided advice background papers for Review, make a final rejoinder debate about that has occupied recent issues this journal. They respond to comments in present issue by Carter et al., Henderson, Tol Yohe. al. continue argue against growing body scientific evidence consensus same evidence. The source their critique is, first, distinctly partisan, increasingly untenable, position broad range available and, second, mistrust international consensus-building exercise centred Intergovernmental Panel Change. Henderson is also largely preoccupied with latter, procedural issues. Yohe focus economic arguments. Their rather narrower concerns way which abatement costs were calculated supporting work carried out Anderson. It rests basic confusions misconceptions, many explained previous contributions. However, readers World might be more interested broader reflection: how would team, following last eight months, assess approach, policies arguments set Review? view analyses policy proposals, support, are sound have stood up well scrutiny. In other words, they right reasons. Central critiques fundamental misunderstanding role formal, highly aggregated modelling. Nevertheless, team argued strongly convincingly that, even within confines formal modelling, raised small group commentators do not overturn conclusion cost action much less than inaction. critics here fall short failing simultaneously afford necessary importance risk ethics.