MSGID: 1:317/3 6476cd78   
   PID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
    Philosophy aligns with economics on how to value future generations in   
   climate policy    
      
     Date:   
         May 30, 2023   
     Source:   
         University of Exeter   
     Summary:   
         A survey of philosophers finds they broadly agree with economists   
         on the best way of valuing the environment of the future in policy   
         decisions made now -- although for different reasons.   
      
      
         Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIN Email   
      
   ==========================================================================   
   FULL STORY   
   ==========================================================================   
   A survey of philosophers finds they broadly agree with economists on the   
   best way of valuing the environment of the future in policy decisions   
   made now - - although for different reasons.   
      
   In a new study published in Nature Climate Change, environmental   
   economists including the University of Exeter's Professor Ben Groom found   
   consensus between the two academic disciplines over an aspect of climate   
   policy known as the 'social discount rate', with philosophers offering   
   support for a rate of 2% -- a value predominantly backed by economists,   
   and which is in line with UN climate targets.   
      
   Social discount rates are used by governments to determine how costs   
   and benefits that occur in the future -- such as the impacts of climate   
   mitigation projects, policies and programmes -- are valued in the present.   
      
   A low discount rate places greater value on the benefits to future   
   generations, such as those created by avoiding burning fossil fuels,   
   and increases the costs of carbon emissions used in public investment   
   appraisal.   
      
   The researchers analysed survey data from over 200 economists and   
   philosophers with expertise in social discounting, who provided a range   
   of qualitative and quantitative answers.   
      
   They found considerable agreement between the two disciplines for a   
   long-term social discount rate of 2% and on analysing the survey data   
   they found in each discipline the median discounting value resulted in   
   temperature changes of around 1.4 degrees C by the end of the century,   
   a figure in line with the UN Paris climate targets.   
      
   Small changes to the SDR have significant policy implications: the Trump   
   administration's increase of the SDR from 3% to 7% reducing the social   
   cost of carbon by a factor of seven, whereas New York State's decision   
   to reduce its SDR to 2% rather than 3% made the social cost of carbon   
   increase from $40 to $125 per tonne of CO2.   
      
   The study is the first to attempt to build expert consensus on social   
   discount rates outside the field of economics.   
      
   Expert advice -- predominantly from economists -- plays a key role in   
   discounting and its application to climate policy, but the underlying   
   ethical issues at stake fall outside most economists' expertise.   
      
   The findings therefore strengthen economists' arguments for a social   
   discount rate of 2% by underpinning it with ethical concerns for the   
   welfare of future generations and 'intergenerational equity'.   
      
   Professor Ben Groom, Dragon Capital Chair in Biodiversity Economics at   
   the University of Exeter said: "That economists and philosophers can   
   agree on policy outcomes builds academic expert consensus, and the paper   
   will help build consensus in favour of the new guidance as it works its   
   way through the US government.   
      
   "The different perspectives of philosophers are complementary to those   
   of economists and offer ethical checks and balances within integrated   
   assessment models to narrow the set of acceptable climate policies, or   
   offer altogether different procedural lenses through which to evaluate   
   climate policy. These insights will be overlooked if economists continue   
   to dominate the social discounting debate."   
       * RELATED_TOPICS   
             o Earth_&_Climate   
                   # Environmental_Awareness # Environmental_Policy #   
                   Global_Warming # Climate   
             o Science_&_Society   
                   # Environmental_Policies # Ocean_Policy # Social_Issues   
                   # STEM_Education   
       * RELATED_TERMS   
             o List_of_disasters o Weather_forecasting o   
             Funding_policies_for_science o Ecotourism o Bioethics o   
             Sustainable_land_management o Timeline_of_environmental_events   
             o Soil_contamination   
      
   ==========================================================================   
   Story Source: Materials provided by University_of_Exeter. Original   
   written by Russell Parton.   
      
   Note: Content may be edited for style and length.   
      
      
   ==========================================================================   
   Journal Reference:   
      1. Frikk Nesje, Moritz A. Drupp, Mark C. Freeman, Ben   
      Groom. Philosophers   
         and economists agree on climate policy paths but for different   
         reasons.   
      
         Nature Climate Change, 2023; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-023-01681-w   
   ==========================================================================   
      
   Link to news story:   
   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230530125419.htm   
      
   --- up 1 year, 13 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 50 minutes   
    * Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 15/0 106/201 114/705 123/120 153/7715 218/700 226/30 227/114   
   SEEN-BY: 229/110 112 113 307 317 400 426 428 470 664 700 291/111 292/854   
   SEEN-BY: 298/25 305/3 317/3 320/219 396/45   
   PATH: 317/3 229/426