Philosophers and economists agree on climate policy paths but for different reasons
Philosophers and economists agree on climate policy paths but for different reasons
复制标题
哲学家和经济学家在气候政策路径上达成共识，但原因不同
作者：
Frikk Nesje;M. Drupp;Mark C. Freeman;Ben Groom
减缓气候变化对社会的估计价值对长期社会贴现率高度敏感。政府贴现指导几乎完全受到经济学家的影响，尽管不清楚他们是否拥有任何关于代际伦理的专门知识。在这里，相比之下，我们报告的观点的哲学家，谁是最训练有素的伦理问题。我们表明，作为一个群体，这些专家为真实的社会贴现率为2%提供了强有力的支持，这一价值也主要得到经济学家的支持。我们发现多学科的支持气候政策路径符合联合国气候目标时，贴现决定因素的意见适用于最近更新的DICE综合评估模型。然而，这种表面上的一致掩盖了关于如何将代际福利伦理更好地纳入气候政策评估的重要观点分歧。经济学家经常主导公共气候政策讨论，例如关于适当的社会贴现率和最佳气候途径的讨论。这篇文章表明，哲学家，专家在基本的伦理问题，一般同意经济学家，但把更多的重量在各种规范的考虑。
The estimated value to society from climate change mitigation is highly sensitive to the long-term social discount rate. Governmental discounting guidance has almost exclusively been influenced by economists, although it is not clear that they possess any special expertise on intergenerational ethics. Here, by contrast, we report the views of philosophers, who are the most trained in ethical matters. We show that, as a group, these experts offer strong support for a real social discount rate of 2%, a value that is also predominantly backed by economists. We find multidisciplinary support for climate policy paths in line with the United Nations climate targets when views on discounting determinants are applied within a recent update of the DICE integrated assessment model. However, this apparent agreement hides important differences in views on how the ethics of intergenerational welfare can be better incorporated into climate policy evaluation. Economists often dominate public climate policy discussions, such as those on the proper social discount rate and optimal climate pathways. This Article shows that philosophers, experts in underlying ethical matters, generally agree with economists but put more weight on various normative considerations.
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Broome J
通讯作者：
Broome J