Fatima Manji interviews the man charged with investigating the economics of climate change

These days, academic Sir Nicholas Stern is quite the celebrity; as he says himself: “It’s been wall to wall media”, since his report on ‘The Economics of Climate Change’ was published. Even as we sit outside the Stern Review office in HM Treasury building, waiting to interview him, I’m reminded of his international prominence: we’re informed he’s on the phone to the leader of the Opposition in Australia. Stern, who has held a number of high profile jobs including Chief Economist at both the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and at the World Bank, is due to return to the LSE in June as IG Patel Chair of Economics and Development, and Head of the India Observatory within the Asia Research Centre.

When we are introduced however, he comes across as friendly and pretty down to earth, telling me Fatima was also his mother’s middle name. He smiles and seems incredibly pleased when I ask him about his imminent return to LSE – he must have been quite impressed with the reception he received when he came to speak back in November. “I’ve been meaning to return to the LSE, ever since I’ve left. It was always my intention to go back,” he says. “It was only ever meant to be a temporary departure, I thought I would go back after the EBRD and indeed I did go back but after a couple of months I was offered the job as Chief Economist of the World Bank. After that I meant to go back again, but Gordon Brown intervened. This will be my third attempt to go back! Third time successful!” he adds.

Stern once allegedly said he “had an idea what the Greenhouse effect was but wasn’t entirely sure”, I ask him if this has now changed. “I’m not an expert on the science of climate change,” he says. “I wouldn’t ever pretend to be, when we first started in summer 2005 – we read up and got a team together. I wasn’t an expert and I had an open mind.” He insists upon the idea that he is primarily an economist who “built on the received science” and embarked upon the report unprejudiced: “What I wanted to stress by, saying something like that - whether I said that or not eighteen months ago - is that I started with an open mind.”

But will Stern’s near-celebrity status make it difficult for him to be accessible to students as an academic once again? “Look - I’m going back because I like being with academic colleagues and I like being with students,” says Stern, firmly resisting any such allegation. “In the EBRD, in the World Bank…here - I worked very much with young teams and I enjoy that.” He talks of his career and how much of it has been spent working in academia: “For 24 years I was a full time academic economist, close to policy - however. From late 1993 to now I have been at the EBRD, the World Bank and now in Government, but two thirds of my career has been in academic life.” In his new role at the LSE, Stern will be concentrating on research relating to India, including returning to the village he first began studying in 1974. He tells me “I don’t want to be too rigid about what I want to do, but a strong Indian element, a strong Asian element and a strong climate change element will be involved.”

So why is an economist studying climate change? Here Stern is brutally blunt: “Well because it was on the economics of climate change. That’s why.” In true (supposedly) politically unbiased civil service style, Stern simply did what was required of him. “We built on the received science, we didn’t question the science…and we looked very much at the economics of risk.” And to those who are critical of his work and claim ‘the science’ is flawed he says: “The science of climate change in my view is pretty well established. There are always a few small minority of scientific dissidents - but there are a very small minority.” Some of these ‘scientific dissidents’ have claimed climate change is not driven by the use of fossil fuels. Stern’s response to such claims is that: “There is a consensus on climate change that human activity plays a powerful role. Scientific dissidents are very few. It’s not for me to judge - it’s for the scientific community to judge and they’ve given their judgement.”

He simply but eloquently expresses what education people need on climate change. “We need to get people to understand the link between action now and what happens later. It is true there are very long lags in this. But the longer you wait, the bigger the problem.” Stern knowledgeably explains the process of greenhouse gas concentration, what can be done to control the flow and the possibility of there being reversibilities. Clearly, now he must have more than just “an idea” of what it’s all about.

Stern’s report may be over 700 pages, but he evidently has the ability to summarise concepts effectively and provide clear explanations. He concisely outlines the role for the UK: “Whatever the UK does it has to do it in a way that makes it easy for other countries. It has to work very much through Europe. Europe is a big player and the UK is playing a big role in shaping European policy. We have to build on common trading schemes …whatever we do has to be in the context of building collaboration. Be it in terms of common pricing, technology and so on. Now in order to do that, we have to show good policies ourselves.” And all this “has to be set in context of how to bring in other countries”, says Stern. “Well actually, that’s strong language” he adds, looking a little thoughtful and then correcting himself: “not how to bring in other countries, but how to work with other countries.”

Environmentalists have been critical of Stern and claim his report is not far-reaching enough. “Doesn’t your report protect the status quo of Western industrial capitalist development?” I ask. “Why should we continue to have faith in such a system?” A buzzer rings in the office at this point, almost as if an emergency alarm bell had just gone off – perhaps I had asked the question they’d all been dreading? Turns out it was only some kind of machine. Stern meanwhile, looked unfazed and calmly replies: “We emphasised very strongly the equity part of the story - it is the richest countries that are responsible for probably - three-quarters of the greenhouse gases, which are there now. For that reason and because they are richer, they should bear the lions share of the cost in adjustment. So that is crystal clear.”

He talks to me of how contraction and convergence (a policy endorsed by the LSE Students Union at a Union General Meeting) is one of many solutions: “The key thing is to recognize equity. And the importance of equity. The important thing is coming up with solutions which are both equitable and efficient. There are lots of ways of doing that, of which contract and converge is one - but the key thing that is going to drive the equity story, is for the rich countries (and we made this clear), to take on the lion’s share - 60-80% of the responsibility for financing the world’s carbon reductions. That’s the key equity part of the story. How you put that into practice – there are many ways of doing it. The key thing is to get the rich countries to take on that responsibility.”

What of the idea floating around the media, that the Chancellor deliberately commissioned Stern’s report to be able to push through green taxes? Stern seems completely unsurprised at this question, having probably heard it too many times before. Again he calmly tells me: He had an open mind. I’m sure, as I did when we started this. He hadn’t spent a lot of time studying it and neither had I. We both started with an open mind, I don’t think he had a pre-arranged agenda and he certainly didn’t communicate one to me, I don’t think he had one.” And what is Stern’s relationship like with Gordon Brown? Here, Stern replies rather hastily (perhaps even a little too quickly);”Its fine. Fine. We were together in India…sitting having a glass of wine with him night before last” says Stern. Once again, he reiterates: “Yeah, we get on fine. I mean, he asked me to do it. He asked me to do the report commission for Africa.”

I move on to an even more interesting question: Is it true that you met Fidel Castro whilst on holiday with your family? “That’s true” says Stern smiling. “He was charming. We met him just after his 75th birthday…we went off for lunch with him and we were there for five and a half hours. Just the five of us and him and one of his people. He was full of ideas. We were on holiday, but I was Chief Economist of the World Bank at the time - so you can’t be completely private, and he invited us all to lunch - fantastically interesting.” I want to ask him more on his encounters with both Castro and the Chancellor, but my time is over.

So finally, what would he like to add – perhaps a message to LSE students? “I’m looking forward enormously to coming back” he says looking delighted at another mention of the LSE. “LSE is an amazing place and one of the many reasons to love it, well let me just give you one - is the mix of the students from all countries - I enjoy that immensely. When you teach - they’ve experienced quite a lot of what you’re talking about. And they’re very smart.” A pretty nice note to end on and I’m guessing he’s hoping LSE students are equally excited about having him back. Later as one of his team escorts us out of the building, she speaks of how he agreed to be interviewed for The Beaver, because of his special attachment to the LSE. As we walk past what appears to be the Chancellor’s office, I signal to The Beaver’s photographer and take a sneaky look in. Unfortunately I couldn’t spot Gordon - otherwise it would have been interesting to ask him about ‘Green Taxes’ and his own version of the Brown-Stern relationship.