It is hard to find good news on the environment, so forgive me that I have not. The latest news is all bad. Some of it concerns Sir Nicholas Stern.
A former chief economist at the World Bank and author of the ground-breaking Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in October 2006, Stern has been a key figure in presenting the case that global warming can be tackled without damage to the world economy.
Indeed, his report, commissioned by the UK government, argued the costs of not tackling climate change would far outweigh those of acting now. He even calculated the cost of action to avoid the worst effects of warming at 1% of GDP a year.
The Stern Review won admirers in industry and government. EasyJet chief executive Andy Harrison is fond of quoting from the report and urges others to read it. As Stern said at the launch of his study: "The conclusion is essentially optimistic. But the task is urgent."
Less than two years on it has become more so. Last week, Stern warned climate change was occurring faster than previously thought and emissions reductions must be speeded up.
The cost of averting the most disastrous effects of warming has doubled, he said. It would now cost 2% of GDP per year for decades to come.
That is unlikely to be what anyone in this or any other industry wanted to hear, but it could be done.
Unfortunately, there is more. Stern's latest calculation is based on stabilising the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a level of 500 parts per million (ppm). The Kyoto Protocol that forms the basis of most climate change forecasts suggests efforts be concentrated on stabilising CO2 at 450ppm. But the consensus among climate scientists is for 350ppm. You see the problem.
There is another. Professor Kevin Anderson, research director at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, tells me Stern based his calculations on a rise in atmospheric CO2 since 2000 of 0.96% a year. The figures grow exponentially, remember.
In fact, the amount of CO2 in the world's atmosphere rose by 2.8% per year between 2000 and 2006. So Stern - author of the report that informs government policy - was out by close to a factor of three.
If that does not worry you, it should. It sheds an uncomfortable light on Stern's optimism and, one way or another, few of us will escape the consequences.