Utility Cost Of Greenhouse Gas
In light of the recent Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (see also the Felicifia post Reviewing The Stern Review), let me propose to whatever audience this humble blog yet has:
What is the cost in utility of greenhouse gas?
In other words, how much utility must one derive from an action that results in greenhouse gas emission in order to offset the decrease in utility from the gas and therefore justify the action?
We should ultimately put this in practical terms, such as "Saving a gallon of gas is about as good as a human living an extra two months in good health." which would mean that if you can extend a human's life in good health by at least two months with by burning a gallon of gas, then you should do it, but if it's any less than that, then you shouldn't. (I'm just making up the two months number.) In addition to gallons of gas, I'd personally like to see a hamburger vs. veggieburger comparison: Sure, that hamburger might test better, but does it taste better enough? (Ignore animal welfare here for now; we'll come back to that soon enough.)
I know this site only has a small handful of readers thus far, but I'm very excited about the idea of online collaboration on the most pressing of topics and want to give it a spin to see what happens. Let's sort the problem out in the comment thread or, if you prefer to remain anonymous or otherwise don't want to use the comment thread, then email me at sethbaum [at] gmail.com.
What is the cost in utility of greenhouse gas?
In other words, how much utility must one derive from an action that results in greenhouse gas emission in order to offset the decrease in utility from the gas and therefore justify the action?
We should ultimately put this in practical terms, such as "Saving a gallon of gas is about as good as a human living an extra two months in good health." which would mean that if you can extend a human's life in good health by at least two months with by burning a gallon of gas, then you should do it, but if it's any less than that, then you shouldn't. (I'm just making up the two months number.) In addition to gallons of gas, I'd personally like to see a hamburger vs. veggieburger comparison: Sure, that hamburger might test better, but does it taste better enough? (Ignore animal welfare here for now; we'll come back to that soon enough.)
I know this site only has a small handful of readers thus far, but I'm very excited about the idea of online collaboration on the most pressing of topics and want to give it a spin to see what happens. Let's sort the problem out in the comment thread or, if you prefer to remain anonymous or otherwise don't want to use the comment thread, then email me at sethbaum [at] gmail.com.
posted by Seth Baum at 7:03 PM
1 Comments:
In addition to the Stern Review, this from Harvard Medical School, Swiss Re, and the UNDP looks helpful: "Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions". See HMS's Climate Change Futures page and this from Swiss Re's website.
Post a Comment
<< Home