Anyone who looks seriously at climate issues should recognize that the consequences of climate change are very uncertain. My own view, defended in my first post here, is that they are sufficiently uncertain to raise serious doubts about the sign as well as the size of the effect, that warming due to human production of greenhouse gases might well make us better off rather than worse off. My belief that the net effect of climate change might be positive is consistent with the current scientific orthodoxy, although I attach a higher probability to the possibility of net positive outcomes and pay more attention to it than most. Rennert et. al. 2022, an article recently published in
Looking at the Figure in Rennert et. al. 2022 (the one you linked to) the cost of CO2 appears very sensitive to discounting with lower discount factor making negative costs more likely. I wonder how your criticism of Rennert et. al. is affected by this observation (if any)? They can acknowledge the importance of properly accounting for technology but argue that governmental agencies are underestimating the cost anyway since the discount factor currently in use is too high.
Looking at the Figure in Rennert et. al. 2022 (the one you linked to) the cost of CO2 appears very sensitive to discounting with lower discount factor making negative costs more likely. I wonder how your criticism of Rennert et. al. is affected by this observation (if any)? They can acknowledge the importance of properly accounting for technology but argue that governmental agencies are underestimating the cost anyway since the discount factor currently in use is too high.
Footnote links are not working.