It’s worth reading this whole thread. Just want to point out here that having a baby has made me violently hostile to the part of economics that treats the risk of planetary collapse as a cost-benefit analysis with an economically optimal “balance” to be found.
brad plumer @bradplumer
27 Dec 2018
Replying to @bradplumer
There's also a non-trivial chance that 4°C or 6°C of warming would destroy human civilization as we know it. Maybe it's only a 5% chance. But do you want to get in a plane with a 5% chance of crashing? How about a planet? /6
5
45
2
108
Replying to @AlexSteffen
The choice of discount rate, mentioned briefly there, seems like a huge issue to me. 19january2017snapshot.epa.go… focuses on a 3% discount rate. Compounded over 100 years, that means harm 100 years in the future is valued at 4.8% of harm today. Seems wrong for this area of policy.

Dec 29, 2018 · 7:43 AM UTC

1
1
Replying to @davidbaron @AlexSteffen
A 3% discount rate is sensible (low, even) if you're operating a business... less so (and far too high) if you're operating a civilization.
1
more replies