2026-09-20T23:32:23Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/955222022-01-13T07:55:14Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Lucas Stanczyk.
Lee, Nathan R. (Nathan Ross)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology and Policy Program.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
2015-02-25T16:43:27Z
2015-02-25T16:43:27Z
2014
2014
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/95522
903645995
Thesis: S.M. in Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, 2014.
This electronic version was submitted by the student author. The certified thesis is available in the Institute Archives and Special Collections.
Cataloged from student-submitted PDF version of thesis.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 50-52).
Climate change generates a conflict between generations: while it is in the interest of the current generation to continue to exploit inexpensive carbon-based fuel to drive economic growth, it is in the interest of future generations that we reduce our carbon emissions by making these fuels more expensive. This raises the following question: what moral framework should we use to adjudicate between the interests of different generations? In this work, I argue that the commonly used framework of "cost-benefit analysis"-the analytic framework for public policy that developed out of the field of welfare economics-fails as a normative framework for intergenerational policy. For one, by aggregating costs and benefits across all generations, it ignores that what matters is each generation. For another, by reducing all value into a unitary objective function, it ignores important distinctions between different categories of moral claims. Third, by attempting to optimize a function across all time, it reflects a false sense of knowledge about the distant future. For all these reasons-and more-I conclude that this approach cannot offer a reasonable normative framework for intergenerational public policy. In its stead, I propose an "intergenerational threshold" principle which avoids aggregating generations together, gives space for different categories of value, and, I will argue, is more robust to the epistemic limitations of intergenerational policy analysis.
by Nathan R. Lee.
S.M. in Technology and Policy
57 pages
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Engineering Systems Division.
Technology and Policy Program.
The intergenerational ethics of climate change : the failure of cost-benefit analysis as a normative framework
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="b822d801-c590-49cb-82fc-7c41c0b3c36f">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>The intergenerational ethics of climate change : the failure of cost-benefit analysis as a normative framework</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2014</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Lee, Nathan R. (Nathan Ross)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Engineering Systems Division.</Keyword>
<Keyword>Technology and Policy Program.</Keyword>
<Abstract>Climate change generates a conflict between generations: while it is in the interest of the current generation to continue to exploit inexpensive carbon-based fuel to drive economic growth, it is in the interest of future generations that we reduce our carbon emissions by making these fuels more expensive. This raises the following question: what moral framework should we use to adjudicate between the interests of different generations? In this work, I argue that the commonly used framework of "cost-benefit analysis"-the analytic framework for public policy that developed out of the field of welfare economics-fails as a normative framework for intergenerational policy. For one, by aggregating costs and benefits across all generations, it ignores that what matters is each generation. For another, by reducing all value into a unitary objective function, it ignores important distinctions between different categories of moral claims. Third, by attempting to optimize a function across all time, it reflects a false sense of knowledge about the distant future. For all these reasons-and more-I conclude that this approach cannot offer a reasonable normative framework for intergenerational public policy. In its stead, I propose an "intergenerational threshold" principle which avoids aggregating generations together, gives space for different categories of value, and, I will argue, is more robust to the epistemic limitations of intergenerational policy analysis.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>