tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post2176274058744288337..comments2023-11-03T06:36:27.305-04:00Comments on Phronesisaical: Climate Change Adaptation Costshelmuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-51105098624261130202009-10-04T16:38:28.951-04:002009-10-04T16:38:28.951-04:00OK, maybe so - that's perhaps a rhetorical iss...OK, maybe so - that's perhaps a rhetorical issue rather than a substantive one. Sloppy on my part for not investigating further, sorry. <br /><br />Nonetheless, it's not clear, at least from the EPA assessment - the actual Waxman-Markey CBA, not the preliminary analysis - how you arrive at your figure of "$1,100 per household by 2050." Have you selected one of the various scenarios as having a greater probability for some reason and then calculated from there?<br /><br />The EPA's CBA report explicitly states that the cost per household numbers do not include the benefits of mitigating climate change. The EPA further concludes, "...the cap and trade policy has a relatively modest impact on consumers assuming the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to household."<br /><br />On this - the real content of the matter - it looks to me like Steger is right.helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-52333600563066576632009-10-04T15:06:08.205-04:002009-10-04T15:06:08.205-04:00I think if you read the post that Cai Steger refer...I think if you read the post that Cai Steger references, you will see that I did not confuse cost-benefit analysis with cost effectiveness analysis.<br /><br />Best,<br />Jim ManziAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com