IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the UK�s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Dietz
  • Alec Morton

Abstract

In this paper we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the UK government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modelling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this paper we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view �fit for purpose�, they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern�s grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and CoRWM�s handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Dietz & Alec Morton, 2009. "Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the UK�s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management," GRI Working Papers 5, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
  • Handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WorkingPaper5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Easterling, 1992. "Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 442-475.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Felix Oberholzer-Gee, 1996. "Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 353-376.
    3. William D. Nordhaus, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 686-702, September.
    4. Robert Mendelsohn, 2008. "Is the Stern Review an Economic Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 45-60, Winter.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 703-724, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (The GRI Administration). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/grlseuk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.