“Now, some observers might think that we are focusing on a bit of minutia, and that surely we can trust experts in the federal government to pick an appropriate rate. And yet, it is quite clear in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines that all cost/benefit analyses are to be scored using both a 3% and a 7% discount rate.”
Does anyone seriously think 7% is an appropriate rate for intergenerational transfers od this type? I don’t think so, but if they do could someone provide a quote or something. Therefore by not publishing 7% they were picking an appropriate rate. It is the regulations requiring 7% to be quoted that are inappropriate in this instance.
Picking an appropriate rate fell foul of the regulations, which is a problem, but not a problem that has anything to do with the social cost of carbon.
I agree that the social cost is not something that can be measured, and it depends on philosophical as well as scientific considerations. But so does lots of Government. I don’t see that as a reason not to use it in policy considerations.
Also provides and example of how Al Gore cut funding from hurricane researcher Dr Bill Gray because Gray was skeptical. That being the main danger of ever taking government money… they will threaten to cut it off if you aren’t cooperative. We don’t know any more how much of the scientific foundation of our society has rotted thanks to government funding, but I would guess more than a little bit.
Meh … I’m just kissing the ground whenever enviros admit that the harm from CO2 is *bounded* :-p
“Now, some observers might think that we are focusing on a bit of minutia, and that surely we can trust experts in the federal government to pick an appropriate rate. And yet, it is quite clear in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines that all cost/benefit analyses are to be scored using both a 3% and a 7% discount rate.”
Does anyone seriously think 7% is an appropriate rate for intergenerational transfers od this type? I don’t think so, but if they do could someone provide a quote or something. Therefore by not publishing 7% they were picking an appropriate rate. It is the regulations requiring 7% to be quoted that are inappropriate in this instance.
Picking an appropriate rate fell foul of the regulations, which is a problem, but not a problem that has anything to do with the social cost of carbon.
I agree that the social cost is not something that can be measured, and it depends on philosophical as well as scientific considerations. But so does lots of Government. I don’t see that as a reason not to use it in policy considerations.
Tony Heller on the carbon schtick. Empiricism rides again.
🙂
http://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU
Also provides and example of how Al Gore cut funding from hurricane researcher Dr Bill Gray because Gray was skeptical. That being the main danger of ever taking government money… they will threaten to cut it off if you aren’t cooperative. We don’t know any more how much of the scientific foundation of our society has rotted thanks to government funding, but I would guess more than a little bit.