If we had 10 years to prevent humanity from being exterminated in 100
years time, I am sure we'd do what's necessary, even if that involved a
lot of pain, never mind electoral cycles.
I do think we are acting fairly rationally, and it's just that the case
hasn't been made that a lot of pain is justified by the level of
danger.
Economics is fine, if a discount rate of 0% makes "dangerous" climate
change 0% likely and a more conventional discount rate of 5% makes it
45% likely, then that is entirely due to the fact that the cost of
"dangerous" climate change is considered modest compared to what else
we could do with our resources.
An infinite cost (extermination of humanity in 100 years) would rather
change the equation never mind whether the discount rate is 0% or 5%.
The discount rate matters as long as there are alternative investments
that give humanity better returns.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
