I agree that we need a metric. I think the idea that it is even commensurable with dollars is dubious, but that's another topic. Let me stipulate that we ahve some measure of value, and discuss whether any discount rate at all is morally defensible.
While we must make some discounting of uncertainty, I do not think a given probability of making the seventieth generation live in a world subjected to some specific amount of damage should be weighed any differently in our calculus than the same probability applied to the current generation. In the case of the clathrate release, we are discussing a high likelihood of affecting hundreds of generations. I admit that the likelihood is a real issue, but let's presume some mutually agreed upon risk weighting, and presuming all else equal, why should we care whether the hundreds of generations affected start in 2080 or 20800? You may argue that no discount is mathematically pathological. I think that's a separate question. (It seems moot, because risk weighting will avoid the pathology, but that's not the point.) My question is what the moral basis is for valuing *equally likely* disaster in 20800 so much less than a comparable disaster in 2080. mt On 7/30/07, Don Libby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 1:12 PM > Subject: [Global Change: 1981] The seventieth generation > > > > Economic arguments would > > discount the hunderds of generations in the future replay of the > > Paleocene/Eocene cataclysm to maybe fortyseven dollars and eighteen > > cents. Do we have a moral right to weight the distant future against a > > more or less arbitrary contemporary measure of value? > > > > mt > > > > You seem to be suggesting there is some measure of value, or "moral right" > that is not more or less arbitrary. In reality we have a difference of > opinion about the discount rate: should we discount it to $47.18 or to forty > seven kazillion dollars and 18 cents? This leaves us with a political > struggle between those who prefer a high discount rate and those who prefer > a low one. Should we tax coal at $200 per ton or $200 kazillion per ton as > Hansen suggests (i.e. "ban coal")? > > -dl > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
