Ken, It's not entirely obvious there will be future generations the way there have been in the past. I think it's fairly clear to most people who have thought about it that eventually technology will get good enough for life to be very long, perhaps open ended.
In which case, the ones who will suffer the consequences are those of us who live into the era of greatly extended life. That makes the very concept of "generation" moot. Fortunately there seems to be a nearer term technology that will end the burning of fossil fuels by simply underpricing them. Anyone for dollar-a-gallon carbon neutral synthetic gasoline? Keith Henson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe we can discuss this after we establish > > (1) the value of species soon to become extinct, and > > (2) the value of a few millennia of rising sea levels. > > While we are at it, we might discuss the ethics of maximizing > net-present-value when we reap the benefits while others pay the costs. > (I'm all for maximizing NPV when the proceeds accrue to me and the costs are > borne by you, but I feel ethically bound to get your permission first. When > somebody figures out a way to get permission from future generations, please > do let me know.) > > > > > _______________ > 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 > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From below: "The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at >> $37 per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes."" >> >> Anyone care to add their 2 cents? A rather crucial measure that will >> determine the net value of any action taken on CO2. >> Greg >> >> CLIMATE: >> >> White House calls for comments on estimated social cost of carbon >> >> Jason Plautz, E&E reporter >> Published: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 >> The Obama administration opened the comment period yesterday on its >> controversial estimate of the cost of carbon emissions after industry groups >> asked for a full rulemaking process on the figure. >> Groups will have until Jan. 27, 2014, to submit comments on revisions to >> the social cost of carbon estimate, which seeks to quantify the cost to >> society of each ton of carbon emissions in property damage, health care >> costs, lost agricultural output and other expenses. >> Republicans and industry representatives had raised concerns that a May >> 2013 revision to the SCC -- which calculated the cost to be $38 per metric >> ton of CO2 by 2015 compared with the 2010 estimate of $23.8 per metric ton >> -- would be used by the administration to determine the cost-effectiveness >> of a host of new regulations. They asked for a full comment period and >> rulemaking process to evaluate the estimate, despite the fact that it is not >> in fact a rule. >> Howard Shelanski, administrator of the Office of Information and >> Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, >> announced the comment period earlier this month after previously saying >> there would not need to be one under the law (E&ENews PM, Nov. 4). >> Shelanski defended the process used by the administration's interagency >> working group, saying the May estimates "reflect values that are similar to >> those used by other governments, international institutions and major >> corporations." >> The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 per >> metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes." >> Environmentalists had commended the White House for not opening a full >> rulemaking process, even while questioning whether the administration had >> chosen values that were too low to fully reflect the risk from rising >> greenhouse gas emissions. >> >> -- >> 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.
