@xriskology thank you for linking to my article in your @motherboard piece. but imo the stern number doesn't work here even w the caveat
-
-
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
stern's main interest is in defending an "approx zero" time discount rate against others
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
see refs herehttp://bruegel.org/2012/04/blogs-review-the-discounting-debate-in-climate-change-mitigation/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
others defend higher rate not bc of higher extinction prob but bc of other ethics (eg rawlsianism)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
stern got 0.1 by: "i'm basing this on extinction which is unlikely; here's a number that sounds low"
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist
Also, if you don't mind, may I ask what your background is? (Just curious!)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @xriskology
physics BA, applied math Ph.D student
9:31 PM - 18 Aug 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.