Cost/Benefit analysis is the most clearly, IMHO, example of moral
reasoning applied to policy. The roots of B/C analysis are firmly in
Utilitarian Ethics. The problem, as I see it, is that economists and/or
policy analysts either do not recognize the moral aspect of B/C analysis
or they reject it outright. In any issue, in this case for some reason
Global Warming, the costs and the benefits are most often subjective.

I'll give an example; for many years I was expected to supply costs and
benefits of wildlife resources and recreation to the State and Federal
governments on various projects. One project was a large dam on the
South Platte River southwest of Denver. This is a primo trout stream and
important habitat for one of the few low-elevation Bighorn Sheep herds
in the state. The dam would have destroyed the trout stream (a cost) and
forced the BH sheep out (a cost), but would have created a reservoir
fishery (a benefit). However, since the reservoir would have been very
deep, cold, and without shore-habitat, it would have required every
intensive stocking. Enough stocking to require the out-put of an entire
hatchery. Now, the question is; is this cost of stocking a cost or a
benefit? According to the State government agency (Denver Water Board)
and the Feds (Army Corps of Engineers) it was a benefit. According to
the State Division of Wildlife, the agency who would have had to do the
work, it was a cost.

Getting back to Lomborg and the issue of global warming, I'm forced to
wonder why the costs of global warming have become, in this case, the
central issue? If some of the scenarios of global warming are correct,
and I don't know one way or another, then we are looking at disasters of
biblical proportions. Is it rational to say, 'We'll just have to live
with it because it's too expensive to do otherwise.'? One of the
arguments seems to be that the money spent on global warming could go to
other, just as worthy, issues. I grant that, but has George the Dubyah
given any examples of where the money his administration is going to
spend this money? I know; "Terror, Terror, Terror." But in reality, the
idea that we are choosing between global warming and raising people out
of poverty is a red herring. If I were to actually see this choice, then
I might be convinced.

Anyway, just my uninformed opinion.

Steven

Do not pretend that conclusions are certain
which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
                            T. H. Huxley, 1869