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: business-as-usual-costs, the Stern Review's "own standards for addressing uncertainty and value controversy support neither the upper nor the lower bound with justifiable quantitative arguments" (Baer-Spash 169) objects if "business as usual will lead to climate change "between 2001 and 2200" whose costs will be equivalent to 5 to 14.4% "loss in per-capita consumption, now and forever," and if the upper bound of these costs should be increased by about 1/3 to account for equity weighting, then busi- ness as usual will lead to costs of 5 to 20% "of the value of global per-capita consumption, now and forever" (144), "Uncertainty about both scientific and economic possibilities is very large and any model must be seen as illustrative. Nevertheless, getting to grips with the analysis in a serious way does require us to look forward explicitly. These models should be seen as one contribution to that discussion. They should be treated with great circumspection. There is a danger that, because they are quantitative, they will be taken too literally. They should not be. They are only one part of an argument. But they can, and do, help us to gain some understanding of the size of the risks involved, an issue that is at the heart of the economics of climate change." (Stern 2006e, 144) objects the Stern Review's "own standards for addressing uncertainty and value controversy support neither the upper nor the lower bound with justifiable quantitative arguments" (Baer-Spash 169), 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 "business as usual will lead to climate change "between 2001 and 2200" whose costs will be equivalent to 5 to 14.4% "loss in per-capita consumption, now and forever," and if the upper bound of these costs should be increased by about 1/3 to account for equity weighting, then busi- ness as usual will lead to costs of 5 to 20% "of the value of global per-capita consumption, now and forever" (144), The Debate about the Stern-Review and the Economics of Climate Change visualized according to the rules and conventions of Logical Argument Mapping (LAM), the "methodology employed reduces strong uncertainty (e.g., partial ignorance, social indeterminacy) to known probabilistic events" (175) supports the Stern Review's "own standards for addressing uncertainty and value controversy support neither the upper nor the lower bound with justifiable quantitative arguments" (Baer-Spash 169), talking about a consumption loss "now" is misleading because "with near-zero discounting, the low damages in the next two centuries get overwhelmed by the long-term average over the many centuries that follow. In fact, using the Review’s methodology, more than half of the estimated damages “now and forever” occur after the year 2800. The damage puzzle is resolved. The large damages from global warming reflect large and speculative damages in the far-distant future magnified into a large current value by a near-zero time discount rate." (696) objects (Nordhaus 2007) if "business as usual will lead to climate change "between 2001 and 2200" whose costs will be equivalent to 5 to 14.4% "loss in per-capita consumption, now and forever," and if the upper bound of these costs should be increased by about 1/3 to account for equity weighting, then busi- ness as usual will lead to costs of 5 to 20% "of the value of global per-capita consumption, now and forever" (144), plausible future states of the world are "numerous (if not infinite). Even if we assumed a finite number of possible outcomes, there is little reason to assume that there will be well-defined probabilities for those outcomes. Human induced climate change holds the prospect of large-scale unique changes outside human historical experience" (175) supports the Stern Review's "own standards for addressing uncertainty and value controversy support neither the upper nor the lower bound with justifiable quantitative arguments" (Baer-Spash 169), in the Stern Review, the upper level of damages is partly justified by "equity weighting," that is by the ethical argument that--since "a disproportionate burden of climate change impacts fall on poor regions of the world"--this burden should be given a "stronger relative weight" than the burden falling on the rich world (Stern 2006e, 143). So, instead of aggregating all climate damages globally, damage estimates should be regionally disaggregated. However, the Stern Review did not do any such calculation (Baer-Spash, 180). "The fact that an ‘equity’ parameter can be set by the preferences of the modeller seems to imply that the aggregate value of the outcome is simply an expression of the CBA climate experts concern, or lack of concern, over poverty" (181) supports the Stern Review's "own standards for addressing uncertainty and value controversy support neither the upper nor the lower bound with justifiable quantitative arguments" (Baer-Spash 169)