On Dec 28 2007, 5:58 pm, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The basic point that all of these calculations (including paying for
> mitigation of GHG emissions) tend to omit is that the choice is not
> between paying now, and extinction, but between paying now, and
> revisiting the question tomorrow, when another decision to pay or not
> can be made.
Are you sure about this?
I would have said the exact opposite.
It seems to me that future catastrophe appears absurdly undervalued
because there is a uniform uncertainty about the future built into the
system.
Morally, a behavior that has 100% chance of killing somebody 5000
years from now is not different than a behavior that has 100% chance
of killing someone in 500 years. Economically, the choice is clearly
to defer the killing further to the future. It seems to me, thus, that
the discount rate acts as an uncertainty discount, **preventing** me
from effectively making the statement that, discount rate aside, I am
certain that the far-future consequences of this action are tantamount
to homicide and so I have to resue to do it.
Happy New Year all!
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
