Those are not the only reasons. Consider technological advancement. If one assumes that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will have the major cost breakthroughs supporters have been predicting for some time, then the future cost of decarbonizing our transportation fleet could be cheaper than expected. Ditto for significantly cheaper batteries, whether used in passenger cars or buses, or solar and wind installations to create dispatchable renewable power. Another example: The high compound growth rate of solar PV, made possible by much cheaper panel prices.
(And yes, I know all about the absurdity of HFCVs. I think they're a pipe dream and an expensive distraction, at best, and the major transportation revolution will come from cheaper batteries for EVs.) On Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:19:08 AM UTC-4, Joan Martínez Alier wrote: > > DISCOUNTING AND THE OPTIMIST PARADOX > > > In Cost-Benefit analysis,e.g. when discussing costs and benefits of > climate change policies, or evaluating a public investment, mainstream > economists discount the future. > Why? Two reasons. First, they explain discounting by subjective > "time-preference". Second, they add another factor. They assume that > economic growth per capita will make the marginal utility (satisfaction) of > consumption lower for our descendants than it is for us today. > > That is, they discount the future because they assume that the future will > be more prosperous, and therefore they recommend destroying more > exhaustible resources today and polluting more than otherwise would be the > case, thereby undermining future prosperity. This has been called the > �optimist paradox�. > > Both Stern and Nordhaus discount the future, Stern at a lower rate because > he assumes lower economic growth for the future than Nordhaus. Of course > such economic growth is not well measured because we should subtract damage > from climate change, loss of biodiversity... Now, to give a present value > to such future losses, we need a discount rate (could be zero). So, the > whole building of CBA crumbles, as ecological economists (Norgaard and > Howarth etc) have pointed out for 20 or 30 years now. > > J. Martinez-Alier > > > > > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
