Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Time of Coronavirus and Climate Change
Like climate economics, the economics of Covid-19 mean we need to take aggressive action, not incremental steps.
My monthly, globally syndicated column for Project Syndicate, translated into a dozen languages, and my earlier bi-weekly Risky Climate column for Bloomberg Green.
Like climate economics, the economics of Covid-19 mean we need to take aggressive action, not incremental steps.
To make sense of the spread of Covid-19, economics—particularly black swan events and compound growth—can provide guidance.
The power of compound growth has long been recognized as essential to economic development. But in both the COVID-19 pandemic and the slower-moving climate crisis, this same mathematical force is cutting the other way, revealing dangerous shortcomings in how we manage externalities.
When considering travel and other choices, economic principles can provide guidance.
A $40 carbon dioxide price? Try $100, $200, or possibly more.
The money would go far in politics, but it will also allow for technological experimentation and will take a fundraising burden off recipients.
To drive down tomorrow’s CO₂ emissions, governments need to subsidize fossil fuel alternatives, too.
Inaugural Risky Climate column
It would be barking mad to take up smoking simply because an experimental cancer treatment showed some promise on a lab rat