5 ms·

Cost-benifit analysis: If the green lobby knew the meaning of this phrase, they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound.

harpastum 18y ago
cost-benefit analysis: If anti-slavery lawyers knew the meaning of this phrase, they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound. I'm not saying that buying eco-credits is anywhere near as important as stemming slavery, I'm just saying cost-benefit analysis ignores all qualitative benefits--e.g. clearer skies, lower overall pollution, freedom, etc. Cost benefit should be considered, but it shouldn't be used to write off major concerns.
- mseebach 18y ago
  The cost/benefit analysis for slavery changed because the coefficients for several variables on the slave-side changed away from 0. The green lobby often measures cost in "oh, we're so rich and privileged anyway and any amount of emissions that's less than before is worth it"... I.e. unrealistic coefficients. We're simply not at the point where a few grams of CO2 here and there is death or survival in 2050. In reality, society is interested in solutions with the highest reduced emissions pr. cost-unit, but the green lobby don't seem to be too interested in giving those out.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    If we acted as if the stupid elements of the conservative/earth plundering lobby spoke for all of them, they'd look stupid too. There's no single opinion on the best solutions going forward.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Your comparison to slavery is completely retarded, both because is a vast overstatement, but more so because it doesn't even make sense. If you rtfa, you'd see that the cost benefit analysis is one of the stronger points: How many trips were avoided, how many packages not mailed and how many phone calls not made because of the internet? Trying to measure one's carbon footprint, and then lessen that footprint is noble. Profiting through some obscure calculation that includes some things but not others is opportunism.
  - sh1mmer 18y ago
    I think his point was that some benefits are intangibles like "Freedom" as opposed to quantifiable gross product increases. In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast. Also it might be nice if you didn't feel the need to call things "retarded". It seems pretty unnecessary.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      Freedom isn't an intangible, it's the core reason for the argument. Besides, a cost/benefit analysis, done properly, is not limited to monetary concerns alone. In trying to refute the original post, the argument proves it: There is a significant lack of understanding in presenting a proper cost/benefit analysis. In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast. Then it's the job of those who suggest we worry about it to properly portray effects that are worth worrying about. (BTW, I'm not a climate-change denier, just looking for concrete solutions.) I called this argument as being "retarded" because it equates those in opposition to carbon credits as morally repugnant, on the same level as slave-traders. That's so extreme it doesn't even make sense.
      - noodle 18y ago
        i don't believe carbon credits were mentioned in this thread of discussion. the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. how much, in dollars and cents, is freedom from slavery worth?
        run4yourlives 18y ago
        the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. And my point is that you can, and should if the actions to be taken are worthwhile. For instance, a cost/benefit analysis for not having slavery is rather straight forward from the nation's point of view. There are several points in favour of abolition, ( national economic benefit from taxes/increased workers, improved relations and trade with other countries) and few against beyond the direct comfort of the slave owner. C/B has little to do with dollars and cents and everything thing to do with gaining the best possible outcome from a particular action. This is the entire point that newt0311 was making: The green lobby needs to present a case that shows there are significant benefits (overall) to the costs associated with each of these changes. It's not a hard argument to make, and shouldn't equate being compared to slave-traders.
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  I think you have a great point. Essentially when making a cost-benefit analysis you need to have a shared understanding of what constitutes costs and benefits. In the case of slavery the justification puts the costs and benefits on the side of the enslavers, little cost and huge benefit. If you look at the side of the slaves there is the opposite huges cost and no benefit. This is the same with the environment only in this case I suspect that mostly the people on the other side of the equation are future generation who get a damaged planet but none of the instant pay-off from our wastage.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    "This is the same with the environment only in this case I suspect that mostly the people on the other side of the equation are future generation who get a damaged planet but none of the instant pay-off from our wastage." The people on the other side are indeed the future geenrations. Just that right now, it seems that they will be getting a dysfunctional economy instead.
- Retric 18y ago
  Clearer skies should be part of a cost benefit analysis. The problem is an industry's pollution could be killing people, but when they have been getting away with it for a long time they see pollution controls as government interference and fight it. EX: Pollution from coal fired power plants killed a lot of people in several ways. A dramatic example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954 But, when it comes to less dramatic damage it's easy for them to fight it.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Clearer skies should be part of a cost benefit analysis. External costs of coal have been quantified by ExternE. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html The report of ExternE, a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in 2001 [...] The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. [...] The report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. Nuclear energy averages under 0.4 euro cents/kWh (0.2-0.7), less than hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (2-10 cent averages in different countries), gas ranges 1-4 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.05-0.25 cents/kWh average. The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase around 30%. A summary plus access to more recent work is on ExternE web site. http://www.externe.info http://www.externe.info
    - anewaccountname 18y ago
      If nuclear is so cheap and has such few externalities, how did we wind up with the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act?
- gravitycop 18y ago
  cost-benefit analysis ignores all [externalities] Not if the externalities are internalized (tautology). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Possible_Solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Possible_Solution...

harpastum 18y ago

cost-benefit analysis: If anti-slavery lawyers knew the meaning of this phrase, they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound. I'm not saying that buying eco-credits is anywhere near as important as stemming slavery, I'm just saying cost-benefit analysis ignores all qualitative benefits--e.g. clearer skies, lower overall pollution, freedom, etc. Cost benefit should be considered, but it shouldn't be used to write off major concerns.

mseebach 18y ago
The cost/benefit analysis for slavery changed because the coefficients for several variables on the slave-side changed away from 0. The green lobby often measures cost in "oh, we're so rich and privileged anyway and any amount of emissions that's less than before is worth it"... I.e. unrealistic coefficients. We're simply not at the point where a few grams of CO2 here and there is death or survival in 2050. In reality, society is interested in solutions with the highest reduced emissions pr. cost-unit, but the green lobby don't seem to be too interested in giving those out.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  If we acted as if the stupid elements of the conservative/earth plundering lobby spoke for all of them, they'd look stupid too. There's no single opinion on the best solutions going forward.
run4yourlives 18y ago
Your comparison to slavery is completely retarded, both because is a vast overstatement, but more so because it doesn't even make sense. If you rtfa, you'd see that the cost benefit analysis is one of the stronger points: How many trips were avoided, how many packages not mailed and how many phone calls not made because of the internet? Trying to measure one's carbon footprint, and then lessen that footprint is noble. Profiting through some obscure calculation that includes some things but not others is opportunism.
- sh1mmer 18y ago
  I think his point was that some benefits are intangibles like "Freedom" as opposed to quantifiable gross product increases. In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast. Also it might be nice if you didn't feel the need to call things "retarded". It seems pretty unnecessary.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Freedom isn't an intangible, it's the core reason for the argument. Besides, a cost/benefit analysis, done properly, is not limited to monetary concerns alone. In trying to refute the original post, the argument proves it: There is a significant lack of understanding in presenting a proper cost/benefit analysis. In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast. Then it's the job of those who suggest we worry about it to properly portray effects that are worth worrying about. (BTW, I'm not a climate-change denier, just looking for concrete solutions.) I called this argument as being "retarded" because it equates those in opposition to carbon credits as morally repugnant, on the same level as slave-traders. That's so extreme it doesn't even make sense.
    - noodle 18y ago
      i don't believe carbon credits were mentioned in this thread of discussion. the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. how much, in dollars and cents, is freedom from slavery worth?
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. And my point is that you can, and should if the actions to be taken are worthwhile. For instance, a cost/benefit analysis for not having slavery is rather straight forward from the nation's point of view. There are several points in favour of abolition, ( national economic benefit from taxes/increased workers, improved relations and trade with other countries) and few against beyond the direct comfort of the slave owner. C/B has little to do with dollars and cents and everything thing to do with gaining the best possible outcome from a particular action. This is the entire point that newt0311 was making: The green lobby needs to present a case that shows there are significant benefits (overall) to the costs associated with each of these changes. It's not a hard argument to make, and shouldn't equate being compared to slave-traders.
sh1mmer 18y ago
I think you have a great point. Essentially when making a cost-benefit analysis you need to have a shared understanding of what constitutes costs and benefits. In the case of slavery the justification puts the costs and benefits on the side of the enslavers, little cost and huge benefit. If you look at the side of the slaves there is the opposite huges cost and no benefit. This is the same with the environment only in this case I suspect that mostly the people on the other side of the equation are future generation who get a damaged planet but none of the instant pay-off from our wastage.
- newt0311 18y ago
  "This is the same with the environment only in this case I suspect that mostly the people on the other side of the equation are future generation who get a damaged planet but none of the instant pay-off from our wastage." The people on the other side are indeed the future geenrations. Just that right now, it seems that they will be getting a dysfunctional economy instead.
Retric 18y ago
Clearer skies should be part of a cost benefit analysis. The problem is an industry's pollution could be killing people, but when they have been getting away with it for a long time they see pollution controls as government interference and fight it. EX: Pollution from coal fired power plants killed a lot of people in several ways. A dramatic example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954 But, when it comes to less dramatic damage it's easy for them to fight it.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Clearer skies should be part of a cost benefit analysis. External costs of coal have been quantified by ExternE. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html The report of ExternE, a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in 2001 [...] The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. [...] The report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. Nuclear energy averages under 0.4 euro cents/kWh (0.2-0.7), less than hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (2-10 cent averages in different countries), gas ranges 1-4 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.05-0.25 cents/kWh average. The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase around 30%. A summary plus access to more recent work is on ExternE web site. http://www.externe.info http://www.externe.info
  - anewaccountname 18y ago
    If nuclear is so cheap and has such few externalities, how did we wind up with the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act?
gravitycop 18y ago
cost-benefit analysis ignores all [externalities] Not if the externalities are internalized (tautology). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Possible_Solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Possible_Solution...