Climate change and the limits of cost-benefit analysis

Econ4’s James Boyce explains why “efficiency” may be a poor basis for deciding whether to save the planet:

Source: Real News Network.

The case for true-cost pricing: Indian Point nuclear plant

“Indian Point: The Next Fukushima?” Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Victor Gilinsky, writing in The New York Times:

Some 160,000 Japanese are still displaced because the radioactive contamination — in an area far less populated and less dense than the New York area — was so intense and far-reaching. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s cost-benefit analyses for Indian Point and other nuclear plants in the United States do not factor in these possibilities.

Read the entire piece here.