ABSTRACT
Economists and natural scientists often seem to perceive their role as filling an information vacuum. A typical practice when facing complex value issues is to note the many possible critiques and drawbacks of work in the area while then going on to employ a methodology which denies the relevance of those same critiques. There is a very different view of the future between the authors and their expectations as to the impact of global climate change on future generations. Many regard the key variable for considering the future to be the discount rate. The real dispute appears to be over the way in which these discount rates are justified. Studies in economic valuation of environmental impacts have over many years developed various measures for placing a value on life or, more precisely, the risk of death. Pollution can lead to premature death and impacts on health. The Greenhouse Gases control literature has also employed estimates of mortality and morbidity.
