Relevant to the earlier discussion of discount rates and climate change, here’s a document in which Frank Ackerman and Lisa Heinzerling make the case against “cost-benefit analysis” in general as an approach to environmental policy decision-making. Some of the problems with this approach, which unfortunately has been given a name that makes you sound crazy to argue against it, are, I think, especially severe in the case of climate change because the concerns about equity that exist with this overall approach get really problematic when you operate on a global scale where gaps in income get really immense.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I think there is a fallacy in using discounting to assess the merits of environmental protection. If future generations are richer than we are, they will probably also assign a greater value to preserving the natural world than we do. So the cost to future generations of irrevocable environmental losses is probably greatly underestimated by anyone who applies conventional discounting.
I actually wonder if a negative discounting rate should be used here. There aren’t many other questions, if any, for which economists would seriously consider assuming a negative rate of discounting.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
The best model in the world can not account for the intergenerational mindreading required. You might as well consult The Amazing Kreskin.
On top of this is the old ‘the thinking that got you into the mess can not get you out of it.’ Wait, here it is, and its that Einstein guy: “No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.”
Then again, as a substitute for action, C-B analysis is in a case by itself. It fights with the power of ten blue-ribbon commissions.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I think cost benefit analysis is fine. I think the easiest way to think about discounting is this. What will the world be like in 2100 if we stop climate change by reducing C02 vs what will the world be like if we don’t? I think discount rate obscure that by making a microeconomic analogy that doesn’t apply in the macroeconomic sense. Yes stopping Global warming is a bad investment for my parents if they only care about themselves. But in 2100 we will be better off if we have stopped climate change. Also we are going to start addressing this a some point in my life the sooner we get started the cheaper it will be.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:05 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:17 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I like the way you put it. tks for the info…
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
bookmark it
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
i’ll reed it againn
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
i’ll reed it againn
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
hello
just thanks
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 am
As a UK-based Cowboys fan, I found your blog on google and read a few of your other ‘boys posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:41 am
This topic is quite hot in the net at the moment. What do you pay the most attention to when choosing what to write about?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The style of writing is quite familiar . Have you written guest posts for other bloggers?