(snip)

Steven writes: No, it makes sense.  The loss of wetlands does not have a
dollar value on it (or more accurately it doesn't necessarily have to
havea dollar value on it), but it is still a loss, i.e. a cost.  Same
goes for wasting your time listening to me drone on about say SAS code
or something else you don't care about.  You  have experienced a cost, a
loss.

Bissell here: I see that as entirely different from the abstraction of
"opportunity." The loss of wetlands is a real loss, the loss of my time
is a real loss. Neither constitute an 'opportunity.'

(snip)

Steve continues: No, I am adhering to the definition which can probably
be found on line somewhere.  Wow, yep dictionary.com has it

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=opportunity%20cost

n : cost in terms of foregone alternatives

http://www.investorwords.com/o2.htm#opportunitycost

The cost of passing up the next best choice when making a decision.

Bissell here: Defining a tautology, or any abstraction, does not confer
concreteness to the idea. It's still nonsense on stilts.

(snip)

Steve continues: In some cases, you are right.  In some cases once you
make the decision the opportunity costs are sunk (i.e. unrecoverable).
In some cases, the costs might be recovered.

Example:

You buy television set A over set B.  The next day you decide to take TV
set A back and get your money back to buy TV set B.  In this case the
costs are not sunk.

If this has you confused about sunk costs vs. other types of costs, you
probably are not alone.

Bissell here; I'm not confused, I'm  skeptical.

(snip)


Steve continues: This is particularly amusing considering the extreme
amount of mathematics in economic theory.  Still, economists are out
there making normative statments, the problem is they are often
dismissed (as is Lomborg) as having the 'right training' and hence
nothing of value (oh the irony) to add to the discussion.  So now you
complain that they say nothing on the issue.  Hmmmm.

The funny thing is, the economists would be the ones to say, "Wait, what
are  the opportunity costs here?"  Whereas you'd say, "Damn the
opportunity costs, full speed ahead!"

To me this is how your objection looks, correct me if I am wrong:

You object to the discussion of alternative ways to spend the money
because nobody is going to spend that money on these alternatives.

Fine, but then it makes me wonder, if we aren't going to spend it on th
alternatives then it seems we aren't going to spend on Kyoto either!


Bissell here: Lomborg and others are *not* trying to propose
alternatives. It sounds as if they are, but they are raising objections
to decisions which have already been made. Something tells me that if
instead of the Kyoto protocol the Rio Summit had come up with a $350
billion proposal to supply clean water to millions and millions of
people, Lomborg and others would now be saying, "But, with that much
money we could halt global warming!" No matter what the project the
folks who follow the lead Julian Simon *always* have objections. The
fact that they disguise a reluctance to do anything meaningful with
environmental policy but making alternative suggestions late in the
policy cycle is subtle, but still meaningless.

Sb

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