Paper Abstract
1071. Cass R. Sunstein, The Arithmetic of Climate Change, 08/2021.
Abstract: With respect to the social cost of carbon: (1) A decision to use the global number, as opposed to the domestic number, would be straightforward to defend against an arbitrariness challenge; a decision to use the domestic number, as opposed to the global number, would be difficult to defend against an arbitrariness challenge. (2) A decision to use a low discount rate, such as two percent, would be straightforward to defend against an arbitrariness challenge; a decision to use a high discount rate, such as seven percent, would be exceedingly difficult to defend against an arbitrariness challenge. (3) A wide range of decisions—involving, for example, climate sensitivity and the damage function—raise difficult questions in science and economics; they should be straightforward to defend against an arbitrariness challenge, but only if they follow from a reasoned justification. (4) Approaches that take account of equity—including “prioritarianism”—should be defensible against an arbitrariness challenge, as should be a refusal to adopt such approaches, but here again, a reasoned justification is required. (5) A decision to “back out” a social cost of carbon, from some specific target, would be challenging to defend against an arbitrariness challenge.