Willett-- Great comment! Right on.
I found this paper absolutely fascinating.
The reason is that it clearly articulates the kind of thinking that
actually drove US policy.It was and is politically salient, while being
scientifically and economically narrow and outdated to the point of
Wil,
Thanks for prompting this stream. One of my concerns about the paper is
that the treatment of costs and benefits does not take into account the
whole range of factors that so many subsequent analyses have considered.
(see, for example, the work about California by Alex Farrell and Michael
Dear All:
Happy Wednesday. Thank you to Geoffrey for circulating the article and starting
this thread.
On first brush I have the same reaction as the others, especially its
repetition of harmfully simplistic conceptions of cost-benefit analysis related
to climate change. It largely
All,
A most interesting discussion about Sunstein's essay on Montreal and
Kyoto protocols. One remark of David Downie's caught my eye: there
is an emerging consensus regarding a very real possibility that one
or more tipping points exist in the global climate system. Going
beyond these
There's very well developed methods for incorporating risk assessment into
CBA, assuming one really wants to do so (if you look at Nordhaus's work in
this context he, curiously (tee hee) appears to know how to do so for
looking at the costs of climate compliance, and not in the case of potential
Thanks for the good wishes Wil, but I would like to point out that for those of
us teaching in the antipodes, spring is just rolling in, and the second
semester started way back in the middle of winter: early July!
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Hipwell
Development Studies
Victoria University of
