PP110 Critical Summary #2

Spencer Sullivan

In this critical summary, I discuss and evaluate critically one of Byron Williston’s

criticisms of the purely economic approach. In chapter two of The Ethics of Climate Change,

Williston argues that cost-benefit analysis misunderstands our duties to future generations.

Williston discusses cost-benefit analysis and its relation to climate change and our future.

Cost-benefit analysis is the optimal point between lowest cost and greatest benefit, which is used

to create the best possible outcome in policy measures. Williston connects cost-benefit analysis

to the future of humanity using an idea called discounting. Discounting is divided into two parts:

The initial investment and the discount rate. If we put down an initial investment of $10,000 for

something that costs $15,000, we will need some sort of interest over time to reach our goal. The

interest varies based on the amount we invest initially, and this is used as a metaphor for the

climate change we face today. The initial investment represents where we are now and the

interest that leads us to our goal represents how much time we have until all hell breaks loose. If

we have $13,000 down already, then the discount rate would be higher, ultimately meaning we

have less time.

The idea of discounting is very significant to this age of time, but there are also multiple

factors that could prove that we have more time for the future. Firstly, as people in a first-world

country, we are more socially and economically developed. We have high-capacity education

systems and institutions that provide us with more than what is needed, meaning overall, it

would take an absolute disaster to make our next generation of people worse-off than we are.

Secondly, globalization has made our social and political circles wider than ever before. Since
many of our resources come from across the globe, and possibly from people in lesser working

conditions, there is more pressure to recognize the ethics in which they are being produced. For

example, many people in this day-of-age buy specific clothing for the sole purpose that they

were produced ethically, meaning no sweatshops or synthetic materials.

Connecting this idea back to cost-benefit analysis, we can come to understand that we, as

a society, are trying to place our finger on where we are within the climate change timeline. This

is essential to humanity as figuring out where we are will ultimately further change our decisions

and aid in creating a better future for our children. Cost-benefit analysis reveals that we can

develop win-win situations, aiding both the economy as well as the planet and people.

All in all, I have found Williston’s approach to this compelling, as his argument and use of

discounting further helps us come to understand that we have placed a lot of value on our future,

even though we contradict ourselves by hurting the Earth we live on.