Robert Holmes wrote: > But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get > far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these > problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions have > a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate > control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the > effect. Where would you put your limited $$? It depends what's measured. Climate control may be hard to measure and correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified, measured, and mitigated. Further it matters what the question is. For example, if someone owns valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century, they might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
