Originally published at: The man using math to fight for the environment | Boing Boing
…
3 Likes
In a welcome change reflecting logic and sanity, one of Revesz’s arguments is that the benefit to the public shouldn’t just be measured in the present, but should take into account the benefits in future years and future generations.
This is what “longtermism” can look like when it isn’t being pushed by opportunistic academics in thrall to greedpig billionaires.
4 Likes
I’ve had the gedanken with people, trying to get them to imagine America 50 years from now. And also asking what if 50 years ago, Americans could have dug up and burned all of the oil that we’re using now? And hadn’t cared at all about air pollution? Would you want us to have less oil and worse air than we already have? If not, why do you wish that on America of the future?
4 Likes
How curious, he’s got a Hungarian surname but was born in Buenos Aires. (As befits someone working to clean up the atmosphere.)
I’m tangentially reminded of
In 2021, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its much-anticipated score for the cost of the child care provisions in the Build Back Better Act, it produced one headline number: $381.5 billion.
… But that budget score badly missed the mark on the net cost of the program. It did not account for any of the savings predicted by reams of academic research on the long-term economic benefits of child care. … Decades ago, Congress decided that CBO cannot account for the indirect or secondary effects a policy change may have on other parts of the budget.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
