If one adopts a real annual discount rate of 5% or more — and there are no significant climate impacts for half a century — these impacts have a present value that is virtually negligible. Within a cost-benefit framework, it then becomes exceedingly difficult to justify any near-term actions other than no-regrets policies. In the greenhouse debate, it is important to draw a clear distinction between prescriptive and descriptive reasoning. A philosopher or an economist may counsel a low or a zero rate of time preference, but this advice does not provide a good description of the collective outcome of individual choices. In particular, it implies an unrealistically rapid increase in the rate of savings and investment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alan S. Manne (1995) studied this question.