As I mentioned before, it’s really somewhat the other way around. Calculations of the cost of the CO2 externality almost always include world impact. This wouldn’t matter vis a vis national impact if the impact was uniform.
In the actual case the impact per tonne in the US is lower than the global average. That’s what the EPA said, under all recent admins, nothing specifically to do with Trump/Pruitt. As in the example I gave, EPA around 10 yrs ago estimated the mean global impact of a tonne of CO2e at $52, but the the strictly local effect of a one tonne reduction by the US at $2.5. Again, the US impact of a US tonne has to be multiplied by the ‘free’ benefit of every other countries’ reductions, assuming all countries act in concert. But the US makes 14% of global CO2e from fossil fuel burning (not counting +/1- of land use, methane leakage etc). So assuming a concerted world effort cuts CO2e 7 tonnes if a US effort cuts it 1 tonne, the avoided cost to the US is till only $28, not $52. $52 assumes the US takes on a large cost of avoiding more deleterious net effects of CO2 on other countries. Which again you can argue it should, or not. My basic point is that evaluating anti-CO2 measures on the basis of global impact already assumes the US agrees to taking on big costs to benefit other countries.
The simple ‘morally’ driven green political pitch for anti-carbon policies assumes everyone would agree with this*, it at least assumes that. In fact the tendency on the green/left side is to assume the US (among other countries) should do more than 1/7 of the reducing because its CO2e per capita is so high. Again that’s an arguably defensible valuable judgment, but it’s not obvious.
Just judging CO2e cost by impact on the US, with equal reductions worldwide, say it’s $28 or substitute a higher number starting with other estimates of the global but it’s not that high, limits you to fairly modest measures to achieve net benefits. It definitely wouldn’t include $150 mean per tonne to take CO2 directly from the air if that’s what it costs. One one hand one can distributed $28 over the whole US economy and say ‘look, this is a quite modest cost’. On the other that’s very unlikely to be a cost high enough to stabilize CO2 PPM. It’s mainly a path toward covering the cost of adapting to a warmer world, which if the EPA’s numbers aren’t wildly low, is a pretty moderate cost. Who know if that’s right, I’m just saying that’s the implication of the numbers.
*again in a hypothetical where the scientific community had full credibility on this issue and everyone accepted the same facts/estimates. Credibility which unfortunately, though probably mainly via misguided intention to promote the public good, it simply does not now have, a fact which people seeking to address this issue must IMO accept and somehow seek to correct, rather than calling all people who are skeptical to one degree or another ‘deniers’ (in a ‘clever’ reference to the Holocaust) and other similar rhetorical tactics.
That actually shows that you rely on the framing the right has put on this issue. Nope, the denier part was complained about by the climate change deniers themselves and made into a talking point too.
Sure it’s there. You are putting forth the opinion it shouldn’t be there. But you’re also dealing strictly in the thought-free political part of the issue, which just sets in opposition ‘big problem (hardly matters what it costs to address)’ v ‘no problem’. I’m trying to make a point about the real externality cost of carbon v various measures to reduce emissions, what would be the debate if it moved off square one. But the scientific community’s recent tendency to wade into the politics as for example by going along with setting up the issue as if it’s a binary, which it isn’t, has created a credibility problem whether you think it should or not.
At the end of the day there’s no ‘framing by the right’ in saying a measure to reduce CO2e has to cost less than the externality of not doing it, or it’s a waste of money. Nor is it per se left/right to understand that quoted global costs of carbon emissions overstate the impact from a US POV. That also has to be explicitly explained and sold to people at some point, the overseas wealth transfer aspect, rather than refusing to address that because one knows it would be a very hard sell. Just talking about ‘super majorities of science’ doesn’t address that, like your post generally doesn’t address what I’m talking about.
I defer to former skeptic and still Republican and conservative scientist Barry Bickmore:
Meh, I think you are trying to ignore the basic point that remains standing, whereas you do think that there is no agreement, the reality is that there is.
Here you show that you do not know that Republicans in congress have called deniers like Monckton to testify in congress and then many other contrarians. The framing has been very insidious.
Again, the complain I made was about thinking that there is nothing there about the framing or the consensus that exists among scientists and the agreement that most of the people have with them.
As for the items mentioned in the OP I have to point out that many contrarians have resorted to the tactic of making a lot of hay out of reports like that one. No need to worry when there is a solutions there. Only that that is not the solution that is needed, but only one piece, and then who will fund it? Eventually politics do enters the picture and the current denier congress and the denier president need to be thrown out.
That was mentioned already by Trump as one of the reasons he used to leave the Paris Accords. So the current course is to declare that indeed, “Après nous, le déluge”
Hopefully, this will be done when Photovoltaic Power becomes the main source of energy. The total power production would grow at least 100 times. There will be another Industrial Revolution and everyone’s living standards will improve.
Then we will be able to
Pull CO2 out of Atmosphere
Use CO2 and electricity to create gasoline
Use artificial gas as fuel without excessive CO2 pollution
Keep in mind, using solar power to 1:1 replace coal fired power is always going to be more efficient than any form of carbon capture. So until solar has grown to the extent that it can no longer efficiently replace fossil fuel powered electricity, any solar being put to put to this scheme is only going to have a marginal effect.
Yes but they’re terribly inefficient at night which means we need twice as many to cover a 24 hr period along with a battery storage system and a way of transmitting the power from the desert to places people want to live.