At a theoretical level (which is where I will be starting my own input, which will continue for four years) the focus is on the need to reverse the normal idea that a cost deferred is a cost saved because of the use of fair value discounting within International Financial Reporting Standards. We suggest that the exact opposite is true in the case of climate accounting. What is required is upfront accounting by provisioning for costs, and because the costs of tackling climate change increase if not tackled early we are looking at accounting without discounting, because the costs of transition need to be incurred as soon as possible.
All of this is addressed – and disagreed with – in hundreds of pages of the Stern Review. Why go over it again in order to get it wrong?
Or, umm, hand on, is the P³ actually going to talk about discounting and climate change without having bothered to read Stern?
This even before we get to the idea that technological change is makes it cheaper to do things in the future. Sometimes at least. Is solar cheaper now than a decade back? So, the costs of installing solar now are less than they were….