Category — Social cost of CO2
“The very real positive externality of inadvertent atmospheric CO2 enrichment must be considered in all studies examining the SCC [social cost of carbon].”
- Craig Idso, “The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Good Production.” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (October 2013).
The Carbon Sense Coalition has accused those waging a war on carbon dioxide of being “anti-green.” Why? Because CO2 is the gas of life, feeding every green plant, producing food for every animal and in the process releasing oxygen, another gas of life, into the atmosphere.
A recent study in Remote Sensing, Measuring and Modeling Global Vegetation Growth: 1982–2009) notes that data from remote sensing devices show significant increase in annual vegetation growth during the last three decades.
They also report that CO2 fertilization is more important than climate variation in determining the magnitude of the vegetation growth. In its words: [Read more →]
October 24, 2013 7 Comments
Surprise! Current Motor Fuel Taxes Exceed the Estimated Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in Most Industrialized Countries
“Simple math demonstrates that the average taxes (including duties) on gasoline and diesel in virtually every developed country exceed the average U.S. EPA’s (over)estimated global social cost of carbon now and through 2025 (at least). In fact, motorists in most European countries already pay taxes in excess of the upper bound estimate of the social cost of carbon through the middle of this century.”
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the average global social cost of carbon (SCC), which is the level at which a global carbon tax should theoretically be set, ranged from $5.6 to $41.8 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2010 (in 2012 US$), and should rise to between $18.7 and $77.4 in 2050 (as shown in Table 1). Per the EPA, the “central value” is represented by the “3% Average” column in the Table. Upper bound estimates are obviously much higher (see last column). 
There are several good reasons to believe that both average and upper bound SCC estimates are severely overstated. Suffice it to say that the major reasons for this are, first, the globe is warming much less rapidly than projected—not to be confused with “predicted”—by models of the same vintage as the models used by EPA to estimate SCC, that is, models from the 1990s and early 2000s [Ref. 2, pp. 4–13].
Second, the SCC estimates downplay, if not ignore, technological change that ought to occur over the next century or more and increase adaptive capacity, if the past couple hundred years are any guide. This means that impacts would be much lower than projected, particularly for the poorest countries which are deemed to be most at risk from global warming [Ref. 2, pp. 13–21]. No matter, for this exercise let’s assume that EPA’s SCC estimates are accurate. [Read more →]
May 30, 2012 12 Comments