Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Arguments Over Carbon Emissions
Comment of the day comes from 99, on the subject of climate change:
No one really seems to be worried about people in the Indo-Gangetic Plain today. Why should we worry about what will happen to them decades in the future?
This is a twist on the Bjorn Lomborg argument. If we're worried about poor people today, we should do something about poor people today – help them get water, education, healthcare, that sort of thing. All of which would have a much more certain and much more immediate beneficial effect than spending the same amount of money on reducing global carbon emissions for the sake of poor people a century hence.
Of course, there are multiple reasons above and beyond poverty reduction to reduce carbon emissions. Which is why Sir Nicholas Stern said at a discussion last week that it's a good idea not to go into too much detail why we should reduce carbon emissions. He used the example of the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," wrote Thomas Jefferson, because if you don't give any reasons why, no one can take issue with your argument. Similarly with carbon emissions: best to ride on the consensus which has now evolved that they should be curtailed, rather than get into long arguments about why they should be curtailed.






