The Ethics of Climate Change: Pay Now or Pay More Later?

Scientific American by John Broome | May. 20, 2008 (Special Report)
Weighing our own prosperity against the chances that climate change will diminish the well-being of our grandchildren calls on economists to make hard ethical judgments

Climate change raises a number of ethical questions. How should we--all of us living today--evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are likely to have more material goods than we do? Many people, some living, others yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change. Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people will die before they bear children, so climate change will prevent the existence ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

See All Reviews »

View | |

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Review

Silhouette_sml
2.2
 by Terry Mazanec - May. 20, 2008

A well reasoned discussion of the balance between immediate rewards and delayed rewards from a societal perspective. But by choosing a seriously flawed example as his prime point of discussion (global warming) Broome seriously undermines his credibility. Even before attempting to weigh the effects of various policy choices to address a problem, the analyst has a more important ethical obligation to consider the observations and science involved, and to apply the appropriate probabilities to the various outcomes. If Broome applies this test to his example he will easily see that the best option is to do nothing since the case for gw is so weak and convoluted.

(7 answers)

Terry's Rating

Overall
2.2

Poor
from 7 answers
Quality
2.3
Fairness
1.0
Information
4.0
Sourcing
1.0
Context
2.0
Popularity
2.0
Recommendation
2.0
Credibility
2.0
More How our ratings work »