During a press conference on August 12th, 1986, US President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Deriving the "Social Costs of Carbon" is full of complexities. On the grand social scale, a respect for truth by those who present themselves to be leaders (koch suckers, and maggots with red hats) will need to be resolved first and soon.
Isn’t the economy part of society? Why do prices reflect benefit but not cost? And, then why are investors able to profit from a price that excludes cost? Will the cost be applied retroactively from those who have realized benefit to those who bear the costs? Why do costs stop only a few hundred years into the future? Is that when time stops? How can you discount future costs of emissions, when emissions are going to provoke catastrophic change and collapse the economy? (Yes, risk is assuming the outcome that is least likely, with the highest impact). If you get this wrong it has the opposite effect, and moves value from the future to the present. Why are future costs social, but present benefits are individual? Trends suggest inequality will only continue, so the benefits of growth aren’t shared with most people on earth, as they haven’t been thus far. Why is this measure restricted to the formal economy, and not the much more valuable benefits of healthy ecosystems, oceans, land and air? What are the environmental costs of carbon? And how arrogant is it that a few people get to determine the value of nature for everyone in the future, based on their own flawed economic model? What is the moral cost of carbon? The economy is the central political debate in modern societies and wholly rejected by traditional societies. The quantitative gains of techno modern capitalism would surely accrue to a select few, and indenture the rest. More importantly, the qualitative benefits from techno modernity is a value judgment about moral worth not shared by everyone. This metric implies there is legitimacy in sacrificing sacred nature for immoral techno modernity. It is flawed, arrogant, and shortsighted. Any social cost of carbon that is less than infinity will be resisted.
Thank you for this video! I understand the topic a lot better now!!
During a press conference on August 12th, 1986, US President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Deriving the "Social Costs of Carbon" is full of complexities. On the grand social scale, a respect for truth by those who present themselves to be leaders (koch suckers, and maggots with red hats) will need to be resolved first and soon.
ompro esse projeto por 10bilhoes para o COOPER UFRJ e já envio 50 bilhões para o projeto
Isn’t the economy part of society? Why do prices reflect benefit but not cost? And, then why are investors able to profit from a price that excludes cost? Will the cost be applied retroactively from those who have realized benefit to those who bear the costs? Why do costs stop only a few hundred years into the future? Is that when time stops? How can you discount future costs of emissions, when emissions are going to provoke catastrophic change and collapse the economy? (Yes, risk is assuming the outcome that is least likely, with the highest impact). If you get this wrong it has the opposite effect, and moves value from the future to the present. Why are future costs social, but present benefits are individual? Trends suggest inequality will only continue, so the benefits of growth aren’t shared with most people on earth, as they haven’t been thus far. Why is this measure restricted to the formal economy, and not the much more valuable benefits of healthy ecosystems, oceans, land and air? What are the environmental costs of carbon? And how arrogant is it that a few people get to determine the value of nature for everyone in the future, based on their own flawed economic model? What is the moral cost of carbon? The economy is the central political debate in modern societies and wholly rejected by traditional societies. The quantitative gains of techno modern capitalism would surely accrue to a select few, and indenture the rest. More importantly, the qualitative benefits from techno modernity is a value judgment about moral worth not shared by everyone. This metric implies there is legitimacy in sacrificing sacred nature for immoral techno modernity. It is flawed, arrogant, and shortsighted. Any social cost of carbon that is less than infinity will be resisted.
@@DRourk Formatting is rather marginal given the medium - the emphasis is on content.
An excellent example of multigenerational thinking. This is the right direction of thought! Thank you for sharing.