tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8775154698789499888..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Discount Rates HoleEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25087879327746115692011-01-30T04:48:46.434-05:002011-01-30T04:48:46.434-05:00I want to continue discussion about that GDP growt...I want to continue discussion about that GDP growth rate will not always be positive, but it seems to be more apt to move to the thread of <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/01/post-growth-progress.html" rel="nofollow">Post-Growth Progress</a> of Michael Tobis's blog, where I have tried to explain Ayres and Warr.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437041108856598560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28039493961011482382011-01-25T23:22:43.539-05:002011-01-25T23:22:43.539-05:00Psst, any chance of pushing the -- more -- break u...Psst, any chance of pushing the -- more -- break up higher in this thread? Issss way long on your main page.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85025121035068699102011-01-23T09:30:30.029-05:002011-01-23T09:30:30.029-05:00"a whole lot of VCs, local governments, and b..."a whole lot of VCs, local governments, and business people (especially around Silicon Valley and SF Bay Area) would be ecstatic to have a long-term plan for rising carbon taxes."<br /><br />Quite....some of them are even my customers (my day job is in wholesaling the weird metals that many of these new technologies need).Tim Worstallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13161727860817121071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81223742575378742622011-01-22T18:32:10.050-05:002011-01-22T18:32:10.050-05:00Wearing my {private equity investor, occasional VC...Wearing my {private equity investor, occasional VC-helper, ex-corporate executive} hat, a whole lot of VCs, local governments, and business people (especially around Silicon Valley and SF Bay Area) would be ecstatic to have a long-term plan for rising carbon taxes.<br /><br />Nobody wants an instant high tax, but of course, the numbers actually have to work, not just keep shoving the problem future-ward.<br /><br />I think Tim is more sanguine than I am about the speed with which energy and transport infrastructure is naturally rebuilt. Big power plants last longer than people expect, roads and railroads are where they are, and in some places take a long time to build.<br /><br />But in any case, it probably doesn't take taxes.<br />We're into the Peak Oil plateau, it's a pretty good guess the world oil production will down to .5Peak by ~2050, and to .1Peak by 2100. Sensible people use the high-EROEI energy sources first, but overall EROEI is going down fairly quickly. No longer does one just stick a straw into Texas, one has to do Deepwater Horizons. Likewise, in California (which people often forget is still actually a serious oil state), we're a long time past "There Will Be Blood".<br /><br /><br />See <a href="http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5316/" rel="nofollow">The Oil rum</a>, specifically "The Curse of Shrinking EROEI" and Figures 11-12. i.e., these are Charlie Hall's <a href="http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/images/Slide1.jpg" rel="nofollow">EROEI balloon diagram</a> and his "cheese slicer" <a href="http://www.sankey-diagrams.com/" rel="nofollow">Sankey diagrams</a> from <a href="http://aspo-spain.org/aspo7/presentations/Hall-EROEI-ASPO7.pdf" rel="nofollow">this presentation.</a><br />There, flip through pp.61-66 the by-year pages to see the effect, especially on discretionary spending.<br /><br />So far Ayres&Warr, Hall, and other biophysical economists make way more sense to me than neoclassical economics that seem to divorce GDP growth from energy. But then, I've actually studied their work and met them. I would love to be convinced (with citations, data, not just opinions) they are wrong...<br /><br />because it is all too easy for us to consume our one-time energy capital without investing enough of it into long-term energy income, and not only dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but build a great deal of infrastructure that makes sense only with cheap oil.<br /><br />(For example, I would suggest that major new airport expansions, especially in expensive-to-build places like near Heathrow, better have a good model of future oil prices. I once looked at justification for the 3d runway, and it accounted for oil prices, but kept them at a ludicrously low level.)<br /><br /><br />Of course, I'd be happy if we used all the oil&gas there is ... if we could shut coal down. But we can't, any smart coal guy should do everything possible to get more coal plants built, to avoid a gradual transition away from them. It is far better for them if people are indefinitely faced with "shut coal off and you turn the lights out." Places like France or California are anathema to coal.<br /><br />All this is orthogonal to the ecological impacts topic, but is not irrelevant to any computations claiming that mitigation or adaptation costs X% of GDP. The IPCC models different emissions scenarios. I'd sure like to see more modeling of different GDP scenarios, including the ones that think (energy supply) affects GDP, not just the reverse. Interested people might go rummage around Nordhaus's <a href="http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/" rel="nofollow">DICE/RICE models</a> and see if they can find that. I haven't looked carefully of late, but I couldn't find it there a few years ago.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31570753041031894292011-01-22T12:19:14.658-05:002011-01-22T12:19:14.658-05:00> direct benefits to human health
And lost inc...> direct benefits to human health<br /><br />And lost income to industry to the extent those health problems are reduced, and increased cost to the individual in the free market who'd rather buy stuff without paying for the pollution involved. Gotta be cynical enough, hard as it is.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6899881153461044832011-01-22T04:45:32.833-05:002011-01-22T04:45:32.833-05:00RE: Marjoram's question as to the extent to wh...RE: Marjoram's question as to the extent to which mitigation measures reduce other stresses on the biosphere. <br /><br />It looks like the big one is direct benefits to human health. - see series of papers in the Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/series/health-and-climate-change. Valuation of just the benefits of reduced air pollution averages about $50/tCO2 (Nemet et al, Env. Res. Letters, 2010).<br /><br />These are not factored in to most economic analysis (including FUND) the only apparent exception being Stern, who did it in a rather minimal manner. Given that these benefits are near-immediate, and equal or bigger then the much more debatable estimates of damage costs of climate change, or most suggestions for a carbon tax - this seems a bit of an oversight, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84244117939498415002011-01-21T13:26:49.309-05:002011-01-21T13:26:49.309-05:00Eli, how many different IPs are posting as "A...Eli, how many different IPs are posting as "Anonymous" in this thread?<br /><br />Is this gush from a firehose, or a sprinkler system?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3325668422689318992011-01-21T10:22:40.923-05:002011-01-21T10:22:40.923-05:00Suppose we magically instituted a worldwide tax pe...Suppose we magically instituted a worldwide tax per barrel oil such that the effective price (averaged over 5-10 years to avoid noise):<br /><br />a) Was at least 2X higher in 2050.<br /><br />I expect this to happen anyway...assuming by "effective price" you mean adjusted for CPI inflation.<br />b) Was 5-10X higher in 2100.<br /><br />1) Do you believe this would have any effect whatsoever on the GDP/capita in 2100AD?<br />Over that time span, no, not a lot. There's a hell of a lot of flexibility in an economy over 89 years. We're going to replace the entire energy generation sector at least twice over that time, the global transport fleet (ships and planes n' trains) two or three times and the personal transportation system perhaps 5 times.<br /><br />If it happened tomorrow (or taxes were raised so that it did) then we'd have huge disruption. But over 39 and 89 years? Not much either way I would have thought.<br />2) If so, in which direction?<br /><br />3) And if negative, would it be noticeable enough that the figures used in Stern, IPCC, etc, for GDP growth might be a bit high?<br /><br />4) Would you be in favor or opposed to such a tax? <br /><br />My long standing suggestion is the Nordhaus proposal (he's the clever chap who came up with it, I'm just a random bloke on the internet supporting it). Low taxation now with a credible plan to raise it over the decades. Perhaps $5 or $10 a tonne CO2 now rising to $240 around 2040.<br /><br />I prefer this to Stern ($80 or $120 now, depending upon which version you take) for that very point above, the turnover of the capital stock. Very little of what we will use in 2050 and almost nothing of what we will use in 2080 exists now. It's all stuff that is going to be built in the coming decades. So what we really want is serious pressure on those who will be doing the building in the future to build low emissions stuff. Curtailing the use, or even insisting upon the premature destruction, of the capital stock that we currently have has a synonym. "Making us poorer".<br /><br />This does depend, of course, on the thought that we're not facing an imminent crisis. But then I don't think we are: we've got a long term and chronic problem to deal with, not something that we've got to have sorted by Tuesday at 3 pm.<br /><br />Precisely why it is a problem in fact, humans aren't very good at solving chronic and long term problems.Tim Worstallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13161727860817121071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60981670098749443022011-01-20T23:52:22.943-05:002011-01-20T23:52:22.943-05:00Majorjam:
Please read Ayres 2005 and perhaps you ...Majorjam:<br /><br />Please read <a href="http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Ayres.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ayres 2005</a> and perhaps you can find a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Growth-Engine-Material-Prosperity/dp/1848441827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239584388&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Ayres and Warr 2008</a>. As Masuda-san says, these deserve more than an offhand mention.<br /><br />As it happens, I reviewed a draft manuscript, and Ayres seemed to like comments enough to ask for a blurb and we have had various discussions, including over dinner.<br /><br />I would be sleep better if someone could convince me Ayres was wrong, via logic, data, citations.<br /><br />Many people are convinced that he is wrong or at least unconvinced he is right. Sadly, most such people have not carefully studied these materials or some of the other papers.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61815910605691537452011-01-20T21:12:59.684-05:002011-01-20T21:12:59.684-05:00This is lots saner than the other thread (not to d...This is lots saner than the other thread (not to deny room for improvement). <br /><br />As the discussion hinges on future economic productivity, I'll throw <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/35/15367.abstract" rel="nofollow">Hsiang 2010</a> into the picture: Heat and other severe weather cut productivity in non-agricultural sectors. <br /><br />It is especially hard to be productive when flooded. <br /><br />Economists answer: "But there will be a construction boom afterward so GDP will be good."<br /><br />Oh Goody. It's all right then. <br /><br />Floods, heat and drought cut agricultural production. If these increase, what are the odds of either a major world wide famine in the 2050's (or a series of lesser population reductions between now and then? <br /><br />Tol: "But some countries will manage to increase production anyway." <br /><br />What a relief that someone has the answers to all these problems. <br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-591938948810285272011-01-20T19:22:55.088-05:002011-01-20T19:22:55.088-05:00"they're not authoritarians, just honestl..."they're not authoritarians, just honestly reflecting the revealed preference for extending a big middle finger to future generations)."<br /><br />Or they are using assumptions that things will get better and better based on wishful thinking about things for example like Tol's bizzare temperature insensitivity of extinction rates.Jakermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940170017973039705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-914777174177174692011-01-20T19:00:53.632-05:002011-01-20T19:00:53.632-05:00John Mashey-
A fossil fuel centric view of growt...John Mashey-<br /> <br />A fossil fuel centric view of growth rates strikes me as highly myopic. First of all, energy is a lesser constraint on production and distribution capability than popularly imagined. Note that the moon shot in petroleum prices of the past few years did not derail economic growth- wayward underwriting practices did. <br /> <br />Of course, oil prices it did make vast stores of hard to reach deposits profitable, much less Canadian tar sands. So I really wonder how constrained oil production will be any time soon. But lets assume that by some miracle, some day, there is global carbon rationing. What then? I hardly think that drives such huge changes in lifestyles.<br /> <br />There are literally hundreds of technologies at various states of development from artificial photosynthesis to continuous solar thermal at the cost of natural gas to sophisticated demand management electric grids to transmission and storage technologies, etc. etc. These are all steadily conspiring to reduce further the energy constraint on output, and to overthrow fossil fuel's dominance of energy production as part of the 'peak oil' processes that are driving its cost curve in the other direction. Resource economics, not to mention history, tells us that there will be at some point a crossover. It has happened before.<br /> <br />I personally can tell you that in the last ten years, alternative energy deals have started to look a lot more like traditional energy deals by metrics that matter quite a lot, but that aren't often discussed in a still neoclassical thinking world (things that are meaningful to financial institutions with legal, regulatory, and liability considerations- not to mention whose principals are exposed to career risk- such as useful lives, warranties and insurance, maintenance, lease residuals, etc.). It is the tip of the iceberg.<br /> <br />I know this is a hot button issue, and I know how sensitive people are to the price at the pump as they say, but I don't find the hypothesis convincing.Majorajamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726411902275032723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88618627057590621532011-01-20T18:36:39.932-05:002011-01-20T18:36:39.932-05:00Some good thoughts here, but people need to distin...Some good thoughts here, but people need to distinguish between background growth rates in the absence of global warming and global warming damages. If the reason d'etre for this thread is people wondering 'what would happen to study results if we were underestimating damages from warming', which seems to be the thrust of many comments here including Richard Tol's, that does not belong in a discussion about the appropriate discount rates to use in an evaluation of the economic merits of mitigation. <br /> <br />That topic belongs on the old thread, in a discussion of how to assess damages writ large, (and thus returns to mitigation), and most particularly given the focus of readers here and at Deltoid, damages to the biosphere (remembering that Weitzman has shown that uncertainty exists at all levels of this problem, from emissions, to temperatures, to damages, to discount rates- with each independently capable of blowing up otherwise nicely behaved numbers).<br /> <br />On the other hand, the question of whether we are overestimating background rates of growth, (and I would argue that we are for several highly OT reasons having to do with the breakdown of civil society, though even I would find negative background growth rates over hundreds of years difficult to justify short of 100 year wars and the like), does indeed have massive implications for the appropriate discount rate to use in studies of this ilk. **<br /> <br />Note however that it's not clear to me how sensitive the results of these models are to different background growth rate assumptions. Remembering that we're talking about an integrated assessment model here, so in addition to a lower or even negative discount rate that dismal growth forecasts could project, they would also imply lesser damages for the same temperature change and lesser emissions, thus lesser temperature change. I would still assume the background growth assumptions relate inversely to the attractiveness of mitigation, just not perhaps as strongly as people here seem to believe.<br /> <br />This helps to explain why the real controversy over discount rate inputs focuses so much on the pure rate of social time preference, which regardless of how specified is actually a small component of the nominal money discount rate in absolute terms (tiny in Stern's formulation, not so Yohe/Tol... and how. Hey, they're not authoritarians, just honestly reflecting the revealed preference for extending a big middle finger to future generations). The reason is that the prtp affects only the way in which we discount the future relative to the present, without all the other implications that background growth rates imply.<br /> <br />** Writing this made me think of a possible way to summarize the sentiment here, (which of course involves, stop the presses, another gaping hole in these economic analyses). I personally have no idea, but can any of the expertise here weigh in on the extent to which mitigation of carbon emissions reduce other non-climate change related stresses on the biosphere? What are those worth? (think on a first order basis ocean acidification, but also other many other fossil fuel driven travesties e.g. deepwater horizon). Because I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts those benefits do not find there way into economic models of climate change such as Richard's.Majorajamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726411902275032723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29535423648073895982011-01-20T17:56:48.725-05:002011-01-20T17:56:48.725-05:00Re: Tim Worstall: The SRES scenarios are the und...Re: Tim Worstall: The SRES scenarios are the underpinning of much of the IPCC's analysis of future climate scenarios, but they are not the be-all and end-all of our climate change understanding. It is true that the higher the economic growth, the more likely it is that we have higher emissions, and therefore more likely high temperature change and damages. So, there is a correlation between rich futures (presumably better able to adapt, and with higher discount rates) and higher emissions scenarios leading to higher temperatures.<br /><br />However, 3 caveats: <br /><br />1: emissions is not perfectly correlated with economic growth. Population is a key factor, and technology improvement another (often approximated as AEEI - autonomous energy efficiency improvement index): so even among the SRES scenarios there are rich but low emissions futures and dirty, poorer high emissions futures. (though none of the SRES scenarios are actually poor, and they mostly all have assumptions about convergence such that the poorest countries today start catching up to the richest by the end of the century in almost all the SRES scenarios... this choice was considered less than optimal by many economists but rumor has it was guided by political considerations such as not wanting to point out the possibility that some dirt-poor countries might remain dirt-poor given their lack of advances over the past several decades)<br /><br />2: the SRES scenarios do not take into account the effects of climate change. So what starts out as a rich, high emissions future could run into massive climate changes and turn into a poor future.<br /><br />3: outside of SRES, one could get a high temperature, poor future if emissions didn't drop until the 2nd half of the century, given climatic inertia: eg, the economy booms until 2060, we hit peak-fossil-fuel or whatever, and everything crashes... but warming continues. <br /><br />-MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75993810830453866462011-01-20T16:07:08.118-05:002011-01-20T16:07:08.118-05:00Tim writes:
"So we cannot assume negative di...Tim writes:<br /><br />"So we cannot assume negative discount rates at some point, driven by a shrinking economy, when our very calculations used to show that there is a climate change problem (which of course there is) make the opposite assumption..."<br /><br />Tim, because of the long lag time I've cited several times (decades for temperature equilibrium following a forcing change, and longer for ecosystem effects, we can indeed expect a both a shrinking economy and climate change problem. The climate change problem is set up in advance (ie with our current economy) then we pay for it for later. [We pay for decades later if it the impact is very strong, and we pay for Millennia if AGW has a low to moderate effect.]Jakermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940170017973039705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70756501063507390382011-01-20T15:02:03.222-05:002011-01-20T15:02:03.222-05:00@Tim
What happens in the model is that climate cha...@Tim<br />What happens in the model is that climate change drives a few regions to economic ruin while other regions continue to grow and emit.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35060414089310118182011-01-20T13:52:01.976-05:002011-01-20T13:52:01.976-05:00A question for Tim:
Let me pose a thought question...A question for Tim:<br />Let me pose a thought question.<br />Suppose we magically instituted a worldwide tax per barrel oil such that the effective price (averaged over 5-10 years to avoid noise):<br /><br />a) Was at least 2X higher in 2050.<br />b) Was 5-10X higher in 2100.<br /><br />1) Do you believe this would have any effect whatsoever on the GDP/capita in 2100AD?<br /><br />2) If so, in which direction?<br /><br />3) And if negative, would it be noticeable enough that the figures used in Stern, IPCC, etc, for GDP growth might be a bit high?<br /><br />4) Would you be in favor or opposed to such a tax?John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39814179995253585482011-01-20T13:30:37.919-05:002011-01-20T13:30:37.919-05:00I only looked at the abstracts Richard, but they c...I only looked at the abstracts Richard, but they certainly do discuss negative discounts, as in <a href="http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp276.html" rel="nofollow">this one, a succinct comment:</a><br /><br />"It is well-known that the discount rate is crucially important for estimating the social cost of carbon, a standard indicator for the seriousness of climate change and desirable level of climate policy. The Ramsey equation for the discount rate has three components: the pure rate of time preference, a measure of relative risk aversion, and the rate of growth of per capita consumption. Much of the attention on the appropriate discount rate for long-term environmental problems has focussed on the role played by the pure rate of time preference in this formulation. We show that the other two elements are numerically just as important in considerations of anthropogenic climate change."John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88172910921680669722011-01-20T12:29:18.609-05:002011-01-20T12:29:18.609-05:00"I think there are other issues to consider w..."I think there are other issues to consider with the discount rate and the environment. Because the environmental problems are usually of very long term, using even a very low discount rate on a future environmental benefit makes it worthless today. "<br /><br />Indeed: and that's a fault with us humans, this hyperbolic discounting thing. But it's still true that the economists (Tol among them) are attempting to measure what humans measure things at. <br /><br />As to negative doscount rates: sure, if the economy shrinks then these are possible. But we almost certainly shouldn't use such in discussing climate change. For in the SRES (the assumptions about future economic and population growth that all of the IPCC work is based upon) we have already assumed that there will be strong economic growth this century. Global GDP will rise from the $50 trillion (1990 ish) to $250 (B2 I think) to $550 trillion (A1).<br /><br />So we cannot assume negative discount rates at some point, driven by a shrinking economy, when our very calculations used to show that there is a climate change problem (which of course there is) make the opposite assumption, that there will be continuing economic growth which will cause the climate change problem we're all trying to solve.Tim Worstallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13161727860817121071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77950789669776050032011-01-20T09:23:35.062-05:002011-01-20T09:23:35.062-05:00I don't think everyone is using the same of th...I don't think everyone is using the same of the several meanings of "discount rate". Why not check, just in case? <br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21034830224699608862011-01-20T08:10:45.568-05:002011-01-20T08:10:45.568-05:00Richard, thank you for clarifying this point of se...Richard, thank you for clarifying this point of sensitivity in your FUND model.Jakermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940170017973039705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24485187062282926182011-01-20T06:59:28.389-05:002011-01-20T06:59:28.389-05:00@Jakerman
In FUND, its lack of water (rather than ...@Jakerman<br />In FUND, its lack of water (rather than species extinction) that would drag down the economy.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7471200846402142062011-01-20T06:23:09.776-05:002011-01-20T06:23:09.776-05:00Apropos of ecology and economics see this from Nat...Apropos of ecology and economics see this from Nature:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7330/full/nature09659.html<br /><br />Systemic risk in banking ecosystems<br />Andrew G. Haldane & Robert M. May<br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br />Chris S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24537972574165892212011-01-20T05:48:30.081-05:002011-01-20T05:48:30.081-05:00Richard Tol writes:
"However, there is a sma...Richard Tol writes:<br /><br />"However, there is a small chance that climate change reverses economic growth in some regions. In that case, the discount rate becomes negative and the net present marginal benefits of greenhouse gas emission reduction becomes very large. So large, that its variance is unbounded."<br /><br />Thank you for providing this analysis.<br /><br />Richard, you found "a small chance that climate change reverses economic growth in some regions" and did so using a model that assumes that extinction rates are relatively insensitive to the scale of warming. <br /><br />What other adjustment to assumptions might might turn this into something larger than a small chance?Jakermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940170017973039705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46342347359023409342011-01-20T03:17:28.758-05:002011-01-20T03:17:28.758-05:00Climate-change-induced negative consumption discou...Climate-change-induced negative consumption discount rates are a real possibility. See<br /><br />http://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/3.html<br /><br />http://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/83.html<br /><br />http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp276.html<br /><br />http://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp348.htmlrichardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.com