On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, James Annan wrote:
After all, we cannot simply assume that future generations are richer,
And yet this *is* the assumption that all the economic modelling makes. And it
is supported by historical trends. Barring catastrophe, is there a plausible
reason for it to be wrong (presumably in cash-type terms, interpreting "richer"
literally)?
The Stern report ends up deciding that a potential loss of 20% of future
consumption would be very bad, which is a loss on top of considerable gains. If
you can plausibly assert that we wouldn't be richer at all, then in Stern terms
this is a complete disaster, with or without climate change.
-W.
William M Connolley | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
