It feels like a sci-fi thriller

Wow, these guys (Bilal and Känzig) are coming up with increasingly staggering numbers as they refine their model and update the data.

It feels like a sci-fi thriller where the protagonists dig deeper and deeper, only to discover the problem is much bigger than we thought.

It feels like a sci-fi thriller where the protagonists dig deeper and deeper, and it turns out the problem is much bigger than we thought.


Let me quickly summarize what I see in the evolution (based on the abstracts and introductions, the key points emerge):

  • May 2024 (original version): This is where it all starts. Their estimate: 1°C global temperature rise reduces world GDP by 12% at peak. Present-value welfare loss 31%, Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) $1056 per ton CO2. Under business-as-usual scenario, enormous damages, and they already emphasize that global temperature variability correlates much better with extreme events (e.g., floods, droughts) than local country-level data used by previous panels. Hence, six times greater damages than old estimates (1-3%).
  • August 2024 (rev1): Minor refinement, but similar: SCC $1065, welfare loss 29%, still 12% GDP decline. More acknowledgments, but the essence doesn’t change much – perhaps data update or minor methodological tweak.
  • November 2024: Here the numbers start rising. SCC $1367, welfare loss 25%, but they still report 12% GDP impact. New elements: stronger emphasis on long-term persistence, and updated database (e.g., ISIMIP extreme weather indicators). The introduction explains in more detail why global variability is better than local (more strongly predicts damaging events).
  • September 2025 (latest): Boom! This is the drastic upgrade. Now 1°C rise reduces world GDP by more than 20% long-term (not just at peak). Present-value welfare loss over 30%, SCC over $1500 per ton. They switched databases (Barro-Ursúa + NOAA for long-term patterns, Penn World Tables for broader data), and emphasize that the permanent 1°C effect is now 20%+ GDP loss. For 2°C warming by 2100, 30%+ welfare loss – this is truly “existential threat” level. New assistants (e.g., Krzysztof Lisiecki), and the introduction is sharper: old estimates were underestimates because they didn’t capture global variability.

What struck me first is how much the estimated damage increases over time – as if reality is catching up with the models, or the new data (e.g., recent extreme events) paints an increasingly darker picture. This isn’t just academic stuff: it implies that large countries (USA, EU) would benefit from decarbonizing even alone, because the costs are lower than the damages.

Reality catches up with models – and now there’s a standard that states: carbon pricing is no game

It’s like a sci-fi thriller unfolding before our eyes, where scientists aren’t just analyzing data but rewriting the economic reality of the future. Bilal and Känzig’s latest research paints an increasingly darker picture year after year of the price we pay for climate change – and the price is no longer just a metaphor.

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), meaning the social cost of one ton of carbon dioxide emissions, has been rising steeply in scientific estimates since 2024.
The series of model updates (May, August, November, then the latest version in September 2025) all point in the same direction: reality is much more expensive than we previously thought.

2024 – we only suspected

According to last year’s models, 1°C global warming could cause up to 12% GDP reduction, with welfare loss around 30%. The SCC was still moving around $1056 per ton CO₂ at that time – six times higher than previous estimates.

2025 – now we know

According to the latest September 2025 version, the same 1°C now comes with 20% global GDP loss, welfare damage above 30%, and SCC exceeding $1500 per ton. This is no longer an “environmental cost” but a civilization price list.

The researchers emphasize: previous estimates underestimated global variability – meaning the unpredictable fluctuations of climate that actually drive extreme events (droughts, floods, heatwaves). This is what the old models couldn’t capture, but reality now does.

Science now puts numbers on survival

The formula is simple, and chilling:

1 ton CO₂ ≈ $1500 social damage.

This realization is not only a scientific milestone but also an economic turning point.
If we look at the real cost of emissions, even the most expensive decarbonization program is cheaper than passive waiting. The USA, the EU – indeed, any country – would benefit from acting even alone, because the damage has long exceeded the cost of collective inaction.

Now there’s a standard that states all this

Until now, science did the calculations, the market remained silent. But now the first international standard has appeared that connects the two worlds:
the Social Cost of Carbon–Linked Carbon Index (SLCI Credit Price Standard™).

This framework directly connects carbon footprint with social damage:

Social Damage (USD) = Carbon Footprint (tCO₂) × SCC (USD/tCO₂)

Meaning every emission has a quantifiable, monetizable price.
The goal of SLCI Credit Price Standard™ is to ensure that carbon credit prices are no longer political bargaining or market compromise, but a mirror of real social damage.

2035 as the convergence year

The standard sets a clear target:

  • By 2030, carbon credit prices must reach at least 30–50% of SCC (450–750 USD/tCO₂),
  • By 2035, they must fully converge with the social cost (approx. 1500 USD/tCO₂).

This correction isn’t theoretical. This is the price of staying alive.

Read the full document:

SLCI Credit Price Standard™ – Social Cost of Carbon–Linked Carbon Index

The currency of the future won’t be dollars or euros, but the price per ton of CO₂.
And now we know what it’s worth.

Source: ClimeNews | Kováts Andrea Éva