<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don&#8217;t Discount the Stern Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:22:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stephane Z.</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4568</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephane Z.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4568</guid>
		<description>Low probability/high damage is &quot;under&quot; the medium proba/super-high damage. If the former requires an action, no need to say what is necessary for the latter :)

Weitzman is an interesting economist, very good at assessing economic impact of environmental depredation. He also wrote some good piece concerning biodiversity preservation (The Noah&#039;s Ark Problem, M. Weitzman, Econometrica, Vol. 66, No. 6 -Nov., 1998). But it remains economy : models and assessing a value to things in the future.

In his article concerning climate change, his stress of the uncertainty remains the main argument. Even a very low probability can make the difference when you do the math.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Low probability/high damage is &#8220;under&#8221; the medium proba/super-high damage. If the former requires an action, no need to say what is necessary for the latter <img src='http://climateprogress.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Weitzman is an interesting economist, very good at assessing economic impact of environmental depredation. He also wrote some good piece concerning biodiversity preservation (The Noah&#8217;s Ark Problem, M. Weitzman, Econometrica, Vol. 66, No. 6 -Nov., 1998). But it remains economy : models and assessing a value to things in the future.</p>
<p>In his article concerning climate change, his stress of the uncertainty remains the main argument. Even a very low probability can make the difference when you do the math.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4564</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4564</guid>
		<description>Funny thing.  I actually like much of that paper.  I have been meaning to blog on it.  He has a section titled &quot;Getting it Right for the Wrong Reasons?&quot; in which he comes down halfway between Stern and his critics -- but that is only because Weitzman (and frankly Stern) don&#039;t fully understand the climate risks.  The low probability/high damage events that he thinks should drive action are actually medium probability/super-high damage events.  I will blog on this later.  Thanks for posting it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny thing.  I actually like much of that paper.  I have been meaning to blog on it.  He has a section titled &#8220;Getting it Right for the Wrong Reasons?&#8221; in which he comes down halfway between Stern and his critics &#8212; but that is only because Weitzman (and frankly Stern) don&#8217;t fully understand the climate risks.  The low probability/high damage events that he thinks should drive action are actually medium probability/super-high damage events.  I will blog on this later.  Thanks for posting it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephane Z.</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4563</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephane Z.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4563</guid>
		<description>I just discovered that Weitzman published a paper about the Stern Review. You might not like it because he takes a stance against Stern&#039;s low discounting rate. But he also explain the idea presented in &quot;Just keep discounting&quot; : there&#039;s a great impact due to incertainty : low probability/high damage events gives an economic incentive to avoid that event (or take an insurance). 

Here is the link : http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/Weitzman/papers/JELSternReport.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just discovered that Weitzman published a paper about the Stern Review. You might not like it because he takes a stance against Stern&#8217;s low discounting rate. But he also explain the idea presented in &#8220;Just keep discounting&#8221; : there&#8217;s a great impact due to incertainty : low probability/high damage events gives an economic incentive to avoid that event (or take an insurance). </p>
<p>Here is the link : <a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/Weitzman/papers/JELSternReport.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.economics.harvard.edu/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>faculty/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>Weitzman/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>papers/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>JELSternReport.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4562</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:07:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4562</guid>
		<description>Any recommendations for something to read online?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any recommendations for something to read online?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephane Z.</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4561</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephane Z.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/dont-discount-the-stern-review/#comment-4561</guid>
		<description>The vast and unconclusive litterature concerning the discounting rate for long periods (and long-term acute problems like climate change) shows how complex this question can be. For an interesting point of view (and easy to understand for non-economists like me), you can read &quot;Just Keep Discounting, But…&quot; written by Martin Weitzman in Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. It&#039;s old (1999) but the point of view is still relevant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The vast and unconclusive litterature concerning the discounting rate for long periods (and long-term acute problems like climate change) shows how complex this question can be. For an interesting point of view (and easy to understand for non-economists like me), you can read &#8220;Just Keep Discounting, But…&#8221; written by Martin Weitzman in Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. It&#8217;s old (1999) but the point of view is still relevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
