From the New York Times a while back:
In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers and scientists, agreed to work out what they considered a coherent standard for establishing the social cost of carbon. The idea was that, in calculating the costs and benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation could not assume that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a $2 cost on society while the Environmental Protection Agency plugged 10 times that amount into its equations.
At the time I protested loudly that this was only half an analysis. Even the dumbest anthropoid knows if he is faced with a complex decision, to take a piece of paper, draw a vertical line down the middle, put “Pluses” at the top of one column, “Minuses” on top of the other, and fill in the columns with the pluses and minuses of the…
View original post 1,031 more words