Question

Let’s say an economist does a cost-benefit analysis on a green energy project to stop climate change. The economist finds that it’s more cost-effective to not do the project, and invest the funds elsewhere, because the benefits of the project are largely to future generations (and are thus discounted), while the project costs are up front. Is this fair to all parties involved? How much does your answer change if you assume that future generations will have a much higher standard of living than those who live in the present?

Answer 1