Ken, I'm inclined to agree with your basic position, but the argument for intergenerational discounting in *some kinds* of public policy is not just sophistry. If we don't discount future benefits or losses, policies that have us saving our money today to benefit people in the future will usually do better on a cost-benefit analysis than policies that have us benefiting people today. For instance, suppose you could either save 10,000 lives today with a $100M public health campaign, or you could invest that money until it's doubled to $200M and save 20,000 lives in the future. With no discounting, it seems like you ought to postpone the public health campaign. (But of course, when it comes time to begin the $200M campaign, the same CBA will recommend deferring the campaign until the money has doubled yet again, and so on.)
I think you'll agree that there's a crucial difference between the climate case and the public health case that I just described: In the climate case, we're taking something from future generations and using it to inflict harm on them, instead of simply providing a benefit to ourselves rather than some future people. In short, there are important arguments against discounting climate damages, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not going to win over many economists. David On Monday, September 16, 2013 4:55:16 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > 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] <javascript:> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Oliver Tickell > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > 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 CO >> 2 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] <javascript:> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
