The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Dr. Mark Paul no published score: no usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
1exchanges match
0on raw tape
0redirected or not addressed
Answered produced feed D 4 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.00

Q So for the last decade and a half, mainstream economists have been warning about the economic costs of not doing anything about climate change. So why, when the economic costs of climate change have been so clearly calculated, is the CBO not doing anything?

A I mean, that's the million-dollar question. Um, you know, unfortunately, we've seen continued inaction from the CBO. I will say, to their credit, they did put out a report talking about climate change and saying that, you know, climate change is a problem. We know that. Um, yet we haven't figured out how to work it into our complex model. Now, of course, as somebody who understands how powerful CBO is and how they constantly are making or breaking legislation, I don't find that anywhere near sufficient. I mean, just to put it into perspective, a report that came out under the Trump administration, the National Climate Assessment Four, estimated that unabated climate change would lead to damages in the realm of 10% of GDP every year into perpetuity. So just to put that into perspective, that is, you know, more than twice the size of the great financial crisis back in 2008, but as a permanent shock to the economy, um, it would be, you know, pretty catastrophic. And to be frank, I think that that is actually a, a underestimate of what things would look like in a three plus degree warmed world, um, precisely because a habitable planet underpins absolutely everything in our lives. So it's, it's hard to capture those in a simple GDP number.

AI assessment note: “yet we haven't figured out how to work it into our complex model.”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 100 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.