I'm no big fan of die-hard economic thinking. (I don't think many have been since the Great Irish Famine.) But the arguments in this article are weak and do dis

I'm no big fan of die-hard economic thinking. (I don't think many have been since the Great Irish Famine.) But the arguments in this article are weak and do disservice to actual criticism. > Is there some level of carbon tax at which we would forego every lake on earth rather than apply it? Of course. If the neo-nazi party had an infallible way to preserve all lakes on Earth for a mere 99% of our income, I think we'll all pass up the opportunity. (Don't tell me it's not a carbon tax. You do breathe out CO₂.) >If there is a 1% chance the world will end unless we do x, we shouldn’t do a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, assuming x is feasible, we should simply do it. Unless paying x leaves us unable to deal with a 2% threat. Really, by this logic we should just follow the fantasies of whoever comes up with the most catastrophic scenario - no matter the likelihood. Cthulhu rising from the deep, anyone?