Oliver, Looks like we are on similar ground.
I think the main argument is: *It is fine for you to use discounting when making your own personal decision about cash flows that affect only you, but it is unethical to use a discounting argument to take something away from somebody else and consume it yourself.* To me, that is the fundamental sophistry involved in inter-generational discounting. Inter-generational discounting is a thin veil to justify plundering the assets of future generations. Best, Ken _______________ 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 Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Oliver Tickell <[email protected]>wrote: > Ken, I do like your way of looking at this! > > FYI I attach the part of my book Kyoto2 which addresses these questions. > Oliver. > > > On 14/09/2013 17:02, Ken Caldeira 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.
