In addition to the important reasons given below for shutting economists out of the debate on climate change, an additional one is even Nicholas Stern fell for trying to look at climate change in net present value terms. As anyone how has built financial models will tell you, pretty much anything that happens more than 30 years out is ascribed no value because just about any positive interest rate will result in very long term impacts being discounted to zero.

The better way to think about climate change is insurance, where buyers knowingly pay a healthy amount over their expected risk because they can’t afford the downside. And here, the downsides are catastrophic.

(Via naked capitalism)

There are markets for everything, including our own destruction.

Be nice with what you write.