He is leading a movemnet to, get this, ban meat to save the planet. Here's TimesOnline with details:
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquerclimate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by Stern for the British government.
Inan interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse
gases [Greenhouse gases, loaded term? RW]...
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
The UK Treasury, which commissioned the report, simultaneously published a document of favourable comments on the Review. Those quoted include, typical global interventionists, with no background in climatology:
Paul Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank
Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency
Kirit Parikh, Member, Planning Commission, Government of India
Adair Turner, Former Director of UK Confederation of British Industry and Economic Advisor to Sustainable Development Commission
Sir Rod Eddington, Adviser to the UK Government on the long term links between transport and economic growth, and former Chief Executive of British Airways
What's really behind it?
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, Ruth Lea, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, questioned the scientific consensus that the Stern Review alleges. She says that "authorities on climate science say that the climate system is far too complex for modest reductions in one of the thousands of factors involved in climate change (i.e., carbon emissions) to have a predictable effect in magnitude, or even direction." Lea questions the long-term economic projections made in the Review, commenting that economic forecasts for just two or three years ahead are usually wrong. Lea goes on to describes the problem of drawing conclusions from combining scientific and economic models as "monumentally complex", and doubts whether the international cooperation on climate change, as argued for in the Review, is really possible. In conclusion, Lea says that the real motive behind the Review is to justify increased tax on fuels.