-1=e^ipi

Yet they go places in other countries.

Such costs are likely negative since more people in the world die from cold than from heat, even in countries like Australia (they have highest mortality rates in winter). The world average global temperature is still way below room temperature, so warming the climate a few degrees likely will make it more habitable for a tropical species like humans.

Gerald Butts, Marlo Renalds

Trudeau is not Obama, and Obama didn't have people like Gerald Butts running things. High up people in Trudeau's government have said they want to kill the oil sands.

I don't think it's impossible that it will get passed, but I wouldn't count on it. This looks like another delay tactic like Obama did. They might pass it for political reasons though, just to appear moderate.

That doesn't mean it will get built under Trudeau. Gerald Butts is against all pipelines because he wants to shut down the oil sands.

DICE 2013 used 3.2 C ECS, 1.5% discount rate, 1.45 coefficient of relative risk aversion. FUND used 1.08% discount rate, 1.47 coefficient of relative risk aversion, and from memory they used the full ensemble of CMIP5 climate models, which have a median ECS of 3.2 C (could be wrong on this). Their ECS values are defiantly biased upwards given recent evidence which suggests ECS is closer to 2 C. Coefficients of relative risk aversion are probably slightly too high (I argue this here https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/expected-social-welfare-maximization-2.pdf).As for the discount rates, Nordhaus seems like he is over discounting the future given his coefficient of relative risk aversion, where as Tol's choice of discount rate + coefficient of relative risk aversion satisfies Ramsey's equation, but is probably too low given that the choice of the coefficient of relative risk aversion is too high. I have many other criticisms of their work, but it is still fairly reasonable.

Most economists don't know anything about climate science. For example, I bet if you asked them the following question: Temperature as a function of CO2 concentrations is: A. An accelerating function B. A linear function C. A decelerating function The majority would get it wrong. Confirmation bias. As usual, you are just looking for evidence to support your pre-determined conclusion. Why does it matter if most economists surveyed think X? There are all sorts of biases at play, from publication bias, to selection bias, to confirmation bias. What was their methodology used to get $37? What level of climate sensitivity did they use? What discount rate? What coefficient of relative risk aversion? Etc. If you look at the best estimates (such as by William Nordhaus and Richard Tol) they are closer to $20/ton. Anyway, I'm not sure how much I can say since Michael Hardner doesn't really like me criticizing the morality of your position.

Wow, you really bought into the propaganda.

I wouldn't trust it either. But I also wouldn't trust western media.

Puerto Ricans don't speak English and don't have as high GDP per capita as Alberta.

Sure they can. Congress just has to approve of it. You even have a Republican presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, who was born in Alberta.

Yeah. Alberta's best option at this point to get their natural resources to market is to vote in a separatist government in 2019 and then join the USA.

This delay tactic is just a strategy to kill the pipeline. We saw the same thing with Keystone XL, where it was delayed for 7 years before being rejected. Ultimately, there are many in Canada who simply want zero development of fossil fuels and want zero pipelines. Trudeau never supported Keystone XL. That was a lie in order to get votes. He chose to 'support' Keystone XL because he knew Obama would reject it. Energy East needs super lengthy regulatory regimes, but the Trudeau government did not hesitate at all to ban Tankers on the West Coast without hearings. If I were an Albertan, which I am not, I would be in full support of Alberta separating and either becoming an independent republic or the 51st US state.

Okay, looked into the definitions of both HDI and IHDI. Both indices are ultimately dependent on arbitrary choices of minimum and maximum values of life expectancy, GNI per capita and schooling. This results in a very questionable ranking of outcomes. For example, a society of people with a life expectancy of 20 years that earn $1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 per year and have 20 years of schooling will have a lower HDI than a society of people with a life expectancy of 21 years that earn $101 per year and have 1 year of schooling. Another issue is the choice of how they weight health, income and education, which is also arbitrary. They use Health^1/3 * Education^1/3 * Income^1/3, but they could have just as easily picked Health^1/4 * Education^1/4 * Income^1/2, or alternatively, they could have added another factor, such as Freedom, in which case they could have picked Health^1/4 * Education^1/4 * Income^1/4 * Freedom^1/4. The choice of parameters doesn't have any empirical basis. I think the relative weighting of Health to Income is probably reasonable (since they are taking the logarithm of income) since for higher HDI values it arguably is what you would get for the average person's von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function (assuming a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 1, which is not that unreasonable). However, the weighting of education with respect to the other 2 parameters is rather questionable. For example, if you have 2 societies with equal life expectancy, one consisting of gender studies graduates with 18 years of schooling and a GNI per capita of $8255 per year and a second society of high school graduates with 12 years of schooling and a GNI per capita of $75000, they would count as having an equal HDI. Personally, I'd prefer the second society. One more thing is that both HDI and and IHDI are based upon a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 1, which is arguably slightly below what the best empirical evidence suggests it is. This means that HDI and IHDI might not be 'socialist' enough. The expected value of the von Neumann-Morgensterm utility of an individual in society (which is the same thing as the Hillian Social Welfare of society) seems like a better measure of societal well being that has a stronger theoretical (and empirical once you measure the appropriate parameters) measure of well being.

Unless someone intends or expects to earn $200,000 per year in the future.

You wont be laughed at for that. You will be laughed at for the suggestion that tipping points don't exist. But prove me wrong and get your Nobel Prize if you want. Maybe. It depends on the preferences of individuals.

I'm not a fan of working for the government, but I did not choose the economic situation, nor did I choose to live in an environment where the primary employer is the government and private enterprise is slowly being lost. That's 1 company in a country of 35 million. Just because you know some people who are well employed does not mean youth unemployment and youth underemployment aren't an issue.

"that formula dude get emotional about the tax increase because it is forced upon people." Where have I said that? Nowhere. "It's not going to change the strangeness of this because we are talking 100 to 150% increase in income versus a 4%" Go submit this to an economics journal to collect your Nobel Prize. They will laugh at you.

I don't see any cognitive dissonance and it's not odd. There is such a thing as the straw that broke the camel's back.

earnings lead to consumption. Go collect your Nobel Prize then. Or maybe your refusal to do so 'doesn't pass the smell test'.

It's irrelevant. Your whole argument is: If a person prefers consumption A in Canada to consumption A + B in the USA and if C << B Then that person prefers consumption A - C in Canada to consumption A + B in the USA. Which is nonsense. All your are demonstrating is that some accountants don't know anything about economics.

Okay msj, want an even bigger number than $200,000? Try $1.2 million US. That's the amount you get for the Nobel Prize. Now go submit your proof of non-existence of preferences or whatever to an economics journal and collect your Nobel Prize.

All I see here is a claim, with no supporting evidence. If you want to refute the existence of tipping points for binary decisions, then please do so and submit your work into a peer reviewed economics journal. You will likely get a Nobel Prize.

Not yet. I said 'plus externalities of course'. Lack of an observation of exponentially increasing resource prices does not imply Hotelling's rule is wrong. Rather, it implies that we are not following Hotelling's rule.