see refs herehttp://bruegel.org/2012/04/blogs-review-the-discounting-debate-in-climate-change-mitigation/ …
-
-
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
[3] by other experts. Does that make sense? Thoughts?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xriskology
re 2, i meant the number "sounded low" relative to other discount rates which were based on things other than xrisk prob
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
if it was intended as a serious estimate of xrisk prob, it's remarkable that the review has no text justifying it as such
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
and afaik stern hasn't written about xrisk at all, so if he made an estimate, would it be really an "expert estimate"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
i don't think this damages your case; other nums were higher and from more relevant sources. just, why include stern?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
another pt here is that stern implicitly assumes that /severity of climate change has no impact on prob of extinction by 2200/
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nostalgebraist @xriskology
bc he uses the same 0.1 # across all compared scenarios. he also doesn't discuss human extinction even in most extreme scenarios
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
so by construction the # has nothing to do w/ climate change. hard to compare to # s that eg treat it as "threat multiplier"?
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.