How much should
we pay to prevent the tiny probability of human civilization
completely collapsing? That's the essential question posed by
Harvard economist Martin Weitzman, who argues that the potential
consequences of global warming are so dire that a cost-benefit
analysis should not be applied to any proposed solution. Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey takes a different view.
Reason Magazine
New at Reason: Ron Bailey on Fat-Tailed Climate Catastrophes
Leave a Comment
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
heshaojie|11.17.09 @ 7:05AM|#
http://www.uggkick.com uggbooks