Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoe, Gerard
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-09T17:37:50Z
dc.date.available2017-06-09T17:37:50Z
dc.date.copyright2013/10/01
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn1948-8327
dc.identifier.otherams-88382.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4232156
dc.description.abstractt is a simple truism that public policy must be guided by an objective analysis of the physical and economic consequences of climate change. It is equally true that policy making is an inherently value-laden endeavor. While these two threads are interconnected, the relative weight given to each depends on the certainty that the technical analyses can deliver. For climate change, the envelope of uncertainty is best understood at the global scale, and there are some well known and formidable challenges to reducing it. This uncertainty must in turn be compounded with much more poorly constrained uncertainties in regional climate, climate impacts, and future economic costs. The case can be made that technical analyses have reached the point of diminishing returns. Should meaningful action on climate change await greater analytical certainty? This paper argues that policy makers should give greater weight to moral arguments, in no small part because that is where the heart of the debate really lies.
dc.publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
dc.titleCosting the Earth: A Numbers Game or a Moral Imperative?
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume5
dc.journal.issue4
dc.journal.titleWeather, Climate, and Society
dc.identifier.doi10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00047.1
dc.journal.fristpage378
dc.journal.lastpage380
dc.treeWeather, Climate, and Society:;2013:;volume( 005 ):;issue: 004
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record