This article argues that questions of economic efficiency should be based on moral decisions about the rights of future generations and that it is fallacious to determine the morality of decisions using a criteria of economic efficiency. Among the many complex, long-term, global environmental issues, global climate change is one that is relatively amenable to conventional economic analysis. However, it is easier for economists to quantify the costs of mitigating climate change through the reduction and absorption of greenhouse gases than to quantify the benefits. Economists are beginning to grapple with these issues and are staking out their positions in public. Based on standard economic assumptions about technological progress and natural resources, economists have generally argued that: 1) in the long run the costs of most mitigation measures are greater than the benefits; 2) until present uncertainties are reduced no action should be taken; and 3) the present generation should not bear the burden of mitigating climate change since, irrespective of what climate changes are occurring today, future people will be materially better off.
