In a new paper published recently called What is wrong with Stern? [pdf] Lilley claims that the influential report “was not fit for purpose” and urges the government to adopt a new strategy taking a more gradual approach to reducing emissions.
According to Lilley, while Stern’s arguments were considered “incontrovertible truth” at the time, “the mood has changed since the recession” as the costs of tackling climate change have hit homes and businesses. (LINK - GWPF)
In a foreword to Lilley's splendid study, the esteemed resource economist Richard Tol concludes that the Stern Review's "academic value is zero". On the other hand, its political value is high. It is therefore understandable that Stern was rewarded for doing the government's dirty work.
Nicholas Stern's report was followed, down-under, by the equally flawed Garnault Report.
Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill wrote: (link)
Nicholas Stern is to blame.
When you see wind farms covering every hill and mountain and most of the valleys too, you can blame Stern. If you can't pay your heating bills, ask Stern why this has happened. When children are indoctrinated and dissenting voices crushed, it is at Nicholas Stern that you should point an accusing finger. When the lights start to go out in a few years time, it's Stern who will have to explain why.
Despite years of having mainstream economists pointing to the flaws in the Stern Review there has been an almost unanimous collective shrug from the media, more interested in climate porn than the wellbeing of their neighbours.