I have argued previously that the landmark Stern Report got the big picture right -- strong action now to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is economically justified, since the cost of action (i.e., mitigation), perhaps 1 percent of GDP, is far less than the cost of inaction (i.e., climate change impacts), which Stern estimates as at least 5 percent of GDP and possibly as high as 20 percent. In particular, I (and others) argued that Stern's much-criticized choice of a low discount rate, 1.4 percent, was in fact justified -- see here and here for a good discussion. Now perhaps the most …
Get Grist in Your Inbox
Millions alive today would have to die before the paleo diet could take over
Washington state just lopped up to $2,500 off the cost of solar panels. Here’s how.
Goodbye, everyone! A massive hole has opened at the End of the World
Lay off the almond milk, you ignorant hipsters
Nestlé doesn’t want you to know how much water it’s bottling from the California desert