At a 4% discount rate, one would be willing to take $1 today in return for causing $2500 in damages 200 years from now.
If we were investing that $1 with the intent that the proceeds would be given to people 200 years in the future, there might be an argument. But if we are just going to increase current consumption at the expense of future generations, then this is not an ethical stance. We are appropriating assets that should be available to future generations and liquidating them to increase our current consumption. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Marty Hoffert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ken: > > The more I read your quips on economics versus physics, the more I see the > value of your undergraduate major in philosophy. > > Marty > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Had the Romans discovered fossil fuels, and invented automobiles and power > plants and so on, and applied the logic recommended by Nordhaus, right now > > -- the great ice sheets would be melting, with sea-level probably rising a > meter per century > -- oceans would be acidified, coral reefs gone > -- the arctic as we know it today would be gone > -- the tropics would be suffering from blistering heat > -- etc > > Would we be glad that the ancient Romans listened to their economists, and > maximized their net present value so they could go on a fossil-fueled > spending binge for a century or two? > > ---- > > As an aside, when I say we should or should not do something, or that > something is good or bad, I am presenting my personal opinion as a human > being and not pretending that it is a scientific result. > > When Eduardo Porter repreresents Nordhaus as says, "If investments in CO2 > abatement > are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using > the proceeds to cover warming’s damage.", is this supposed to be a > representation of personal values, or is this a finding of the "science" of > economics? If the latter, then I would know to see how this "science" > proceeds from empirical facts to prescriptive statements about what we > ought to do. What is the experiment that would demonstrate the truth of > the quoted sentence? > > Science tells us facts about the world. Religion and morality tell us > about what we ought or ought not to do. Is economics a science or a > religion? > > ---- > > I prefer the speed of light to be 6 x 10**8 m/s, instead of a measly 3 x > 10**8 m/s. Is this like Nordhaus saying he prefers a discount rate of 4%? > Do facts matter here, or do we just dress up our values with a little > mathematics and pretend it is a science? > > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/counting-the-cost-of-fixing-the-future.html >> >> Interesting article navigating the SCC (social cost of carbon) issue, >> critical measure for evaluating the applicability of any mitigation >> action/technology. >> >> One revealing quote from Nordhaus: >> >> “Investments in reducing future climate damages to corn and trees and >> other areas should compete with investments in better seed, improved >> rotation and many other high-yield investments.” If investments in CO2 >> abatement >> are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using >> the proceeds to cover warming’s damage. We would still have money left >> over. Professor Nordhaus says he prefers a 4 percent discount rate. >> Using it in “A Question of Balance,” he calculates that the optimal carbon >> tax comes in at around $11 per ton of CO2. >> >> Greg >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
