This was the question that kept running through my mind while listening to this NPR story about how a federal court today gave the green light for this metric to be used in regulations.
I have googled “social cost of carbon” and looked at several hits, but I don’t get any solid data. I am wondering if they just tally up everything from the negative side of the ledger, but don’t even consider benefits. As an example of the latter, the “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomberg has argued that:
Are these kinds of benefits included in the EPA analysis, anyone know?
I’m surprised that more fossil fuel shills don’t jump on this sort of bandwagon - the “global warming will bring more benefits than drawbacks” argument. I suppose it’s because they’re conservative, and conservatives don’t like the idea of embracing change.
Well, conservatives who hate alternative energy just on the principle of it being new, different and therefore liberal, don’t have much to argue with. Nuke, hydro, solar & wind don’t kill in as many numbers as fossil fuel burning, though there are those who will point out that occasionally solar panel installers fall off roofs.
The EPA’s model works on things like net agricultural productivity loss so yes, they do account for positives.
the underlying model for the EPA’s SCC estimates is the DICE model, and that does not use heat or cold deaths as part of the health offset, only disease variances (malaria, debgue, etc. Zika now as well, I assume).
Note that a recent revised model thinks the EPA’s basis is way too conservative, not the other way around. That revision also explicitly accounts for adaptation to climate change as a factor, BTW, so yes, modellers do take the positives into account. They just disagree that they’re as impactful as their opponents.
Of note: Global warmth might be a good thing. But global warmth isn’t the same thing as global warming. The problem is just due to the change, which comes too rapidly to easily adapt to it in time.
I haven’t read the report but I did catch that NPR piece. My first reaction is to withhold my opinion until the experts have vetted the methodology and conclusions. At $36/ton, this costs $250 billion a year for the USA. Maybe not chump change but probably less that all the tax breaks Big Oil gets.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost a trillion a year …
It’s not an oversight at all - they didn’t consider that the offset was big enough to have an impact, based on the figures and weighting they considered (consider that the National Weather Service says the opposite of your study) It would be an oversight if they never considered the stats, they did and chose to not use them.
Also, it greatly depends on how you define “temperature-related deaths”, apparently.
Probably because it would require acknowledging that global climate change is actually happening, which they have thusfar been busily denying.
Well, people have been suggesting conserving electricity for decades. For example, it was the main reason behind switching lighting from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent tubes to halogens to CFL’s to LED’s to …
Very interesting. I’ve got to go with the CDC as having more credibility when it comes to causes of death than the National Weather Service. And I don’t think that’s a very controversial choice, honestly. (If the CDC tries to weigh in on how bad a hurricane season we can expect next year, I will go the other way.)
In any event, I know we have several Canadian posters here. It strikes me as pretty clear that Canada must see more benefits than drawbacks in global warming. What does their government say?
Will likely see short-term benefits, yes, the Canadians are aware. They just don’t see it as a net gain given the negatives:
Yeah, having more productive potential crops or a longer growing season isn’t going to do you much good when the farmers are dead of malaria or the farmlands are under water.
Are you being serious? Do you think the effects of climate change are going to leave Canada a temperate paradise? No, it’ll leave itlike this. And then it will burn.
Sure I’m being serious. And it’s just not credible to me that climate change will leave every region worse off. That comes across like propaganda. It seems much more likely to me that some places will be worse off and some will be better off and most places a combination of both depending on what you value.
We had the hottest July ever, but even most climate scientists will tell you that global warming is warming winters much more than summers. And significantly warmer winters with only moderately warmer summers is going to make a lot of currently population non-dense land in northern Russia, Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia a lot more conducive to human habitation. We may see a reversal of the patterns we’ve seen of people migrating to the Sun Belt.
This gets back to what I was saying about warmth vs. warming. Yes, global warming will probably give Canadian agriculture a lot more potential productivity. But productivity of what? Will it become a good climate for growing wheat, or corn, or soybeans, or cotton, or rice? What seeds should a farmer buy? What equipment should they invest in? What do they need to be looking at for infrastructure improvements in, say, the next ten years? And will they still be using that same equipment and infrastructure to grow the same crops, ten years after that?
