WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Problems-of-Cost-Benefit-Analysis, if "CBA was developed to evaluate well–defined smallscale projects," and if "even at such a project level there is often scepticism relating to the necessary simplifications and assumptions," then cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 167) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is "an unsuitable tool for generating [climate] policy recommendations" (Spash 2007, 706), if there is potential for catastrophic surprises, then cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU:Spash, 711) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations, click on the small, bent arrow at the bottom right of this text box to get back to the Stern Review's main argumentation start here if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", "if the model is to quantify the full range of effects, it must place monetary values on health and the environment, which is conceptually, ethically and empirically very difficult. But, given these caveats, even at the optimistic end of the 5 – 20% range, ‘business as usual’ climate change implies the equivalent of a permanent reduction in consumption that is strikingly large." (Stern 2006e, 144) supports "Estimating those costs is essential for taking action (although we have emphasised strongly the dangers of taking them too literally)." (Stern 2006e, 145), if the Stern Review uses "a preference utilitarian framework where costs and benefits are measured as changes in consumption" only, and if goods such as human lives and environ- mental quality are incommensurable with income and consumption, then Stern's cost-benefit analysis is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Spash, 708) Stern's cost-benefit analysis is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations, the Stern Review uses "a preference utilitarian framework where costs and benefits are measured as changes in consumption" only therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Spash, 708) Stern's cost-benefit analysis is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations, "Estimating those costs is essential for taking action (although we have emphasised strongly the dangers of taking them too literally)." (Stern 2006e, 145) defeats if "CBA was developed to evaluate well–defined smallscale projects," and if "even at such a project level there is often scepticism relating to the necessary simplifications and assumptions," then cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations, "Estimating those costs is essential for taking action (although we have emphasised strongly the dangers of taking them too literally)." (Stern 2006e, 145) objects this approach "diverts attention away from alternative approaches, away from ethical debates over harming the innocent, the poor and future generations, and away from the fundamental changes needed to tackle the very real and serious problems current economic systems pose for environmental systems." (Spash 704), "even at such a project level there is often scepticism relating to the necessary simplifications and assumptions" therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU: Baer/ Spash, 167) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is "an unsuitable tool for generating [climate] policy recommendations" (Spash 2007, 706), this approach "diverts attention away from alternative approaches, away from ethical debates over harming the innocent, the poor and future generations, and away from the fundamental changes needed to tackle the very real and serious problems current economic systems pose for environmental systems." (Spash 704) for example "reducing the risk of crossing some threshold to an acceptably low level." (Baer-Spash, 177), "Estimating those costs is essential for taking action (although we have emphasised strongly the dangers of taking them too literally)." (Stern 2006e, 145) objects goods such as human lives and environmental quality are incom- mensurable with income and con- sumption, i.e. they cannot be measured by a dollar value, "risks of catastrophic species losses of 25 per cent or even 50 per cent or more would only enter the decision calculus inasmuch as one could put a monetary value on them." (177) supports (Baer-Spash) goods such as human lives and environmental quality are incom- mensurable with income and con- sumption, i.e. they cannot be measured by a dollar value, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is "an unsuitable tool for generating [climate] policy recommendations" (Spash 2007, 706) objects if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", "there is potential for large surprises. The surprises are not some bounded probability distributions which experts can specify by starring into their crystal balls and magically convert from vision to monetary value (absolute or GDP). The surprises are potential scenarios which scientists can outline to the best of their ability and which involve loss of life and human infrastructure on a grand scale; losses only precedented by the mass movement of people, death and destruction of World War II. However, there is no enemy to defeat nor peace treaty to sign, only our own actions to control. Once the surprises start in earnest action will be too little too late. For example, ice sheet melt causing a six meter sea level rise is a scenario which would flood all the major coastal cities. A two-meter sea level rise alone will displace hundreds of millions of people and inundate low lying cities (Lenton et al., 2006: 15). How does this get transformed into X% GDP with any semblance of meaning left in the utter disaster and human suffering which would be entailed?" (Spash 711) support there is potential for catastrophic surprises, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations objects if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", there is potential for catastrophic surprises therefore (ArgScheme: modus ponens AU:Spash, 711) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations, Stern's cost-benefit analysis is an unsuitable tool for generating climate policy recommendations objects if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change", "For example, the analysis models reduction of poverty and child mortality as driven solely byGDP growth. Relegated to a footnote is the explanation that other factors such as income distribution are assumed constant (Stern, 2006: 108). This just pre-loads the results to favour a pro-growth strategy in which GHG control is subsumed (Stern, 2006: viii). That GDP growth is historically highly correlated with energy use (Kümmel, 1989), and so GHG emissions, is apparently unproblematic." (709) supports the Stern Review uses "a preference utilitarian framework where costs and benefits are measured as changes in consumption" only, The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), this approach "diverts attention away from alternative approaches, away from ethical debates over harming the innocent, the poor and future generations, and away from the fundamental changes needed to tackle the very real and serious problems current economic systems pose for environmental systems." (Spash 704) objects if "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting," then "prompt and strong action is clearly warranted" ... "to avoid the worst impacts of climate change"