Final answer:
Conventional economic analysis struggles to capture intergenerational and intragenerational ethical costs associated with climate change, as these transcend traditional economic measures and involve long-term societal and environmental impacts that affect populations unequally. Option C is correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Gardiner, conventional (cost-benefit) economic analysis is incapable of capturing intergenerational and intragenerational ethical costs associated with climate change. This is because these analyses typically don't account for the broader ethical implications of climate actions, such as the responsibility to future generations and the distribution of costs and benefits among the current population. These ethical considerations are crucial when assessing the full impact of climate change and associated policies.
The focus on immediate cost efficiency often overshadows the long-term societal and environmental impacts. While economic costs of renewable energy adoption, immediate financial costs for affected industries, and costs of technological innovations for climate mitigation can be quantified and modeled, the broader ethical implications transcend traditional economic valuation and require a more nuanced approach. These costs include, but are not limited to, social and environmental repercussions that span generations and affect both current and future populations differently.
Economic analyses tend to overlook these aspects, and as a result, fail to fully encompass the true scale of the climate challenge and the moral obligations we hold towards others within our generation and those to come. The complexity and gravity of these ethical costs demand recognition beyond conventional economic frameworks, as they are critical in guiding equitable and effective climate policies.