Tudomány Archívum - Voluntary Carbon Registry

Professional Resources

rampi — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 23:35:20 +0000

In the submenu, you will find professional content, tools, and knowledge that help you understand the decarbonization process and start moving towards carbon-neutral operations.

A Professional Resources bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

It feels like a sci-fi thriller

rampi — Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:01:20 +0000

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. 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

A It feels like a sci-fi thriller bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The Economic Cost of Climate Change

rampi — Sat, 06 Sep 2025 21:46:18 +0000

The economic “cost” of climate change: approximately $38 trillion USD in annual losses around 2049 – roughly $4,600–$4,750 per capita In brief: According to a study titled The economic commitment of climate change published in the journal Nature (PDF), due to the already “locked-in” global warming, the world economy will suffer an average annual loss of $38 trillion USD around 2049, with global average incomes being 19% lower than they would be in a world without climate change. This annual damage is roughly six times the cost of implementing the emission reduction measures needed to stay on the 2°C pathway. The Potsdam Institute released an update (August 2025) suggesting the global average income reduction is closer to 17%, with the economic cost at $32 trillion dollars annually. Even by this revision, the damage is still 5 times the cost of climate protection. The core message remains unchanged: inaction is more expensive than action. The economic damages caused by climate change are significant by mid-century and exceed the costs of mitigation. They are primarily driven by temperature changes and disproportionately affect low-income regions with low historical emissions. These findings are broadly consistent with the wider body of evidence on the magnitude of the economic impacts of climate change and the benefits of emission reduction (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The study uses a so-called committed damage model to show that processes already set in motion by past emissions are generating irreversible economic impacts. The models indicate that the impacts projected through 2049 differ significantly between future emission scenarios – meaning the damage is already “locked in”. The image shows a world map indicating income change relative to an economy without climate change: the greatest losses are shown in red, primarily in South Asia, Africa, and South America, while some northern regions (blue) show minor gains. What does this mean per capita? $38 trillion USD / year divided by ~8.0 billion people ≈ $4,750/person/year. Using the latest UN estimate (8.2 billion people in 2024), $38 trillion / 8.2 billion ≈ $4,630/person/year. According to the 2025 revision: $32 trillion / 8.2 billion ≈ $3,900/person/year. This means that every single person incurs an “invisible climate tax” of several thousand dollars per year – and most people have never even heard of it. Key takeaways from the Nature study “Committed” Damages: The warming already built into the system, even without further emissions, will cause massive losses to the global economy every year in the medium term. The central estimate is an average income reduction of 19% (later 17%) around 2049. Annual loss in USD: $38 trillion USD/year (in 2005, purchasing power parity adjusted, “international” USD), revised to $32 trillion USD/year. Inequality: Africa and South Asia suffer the largest proportional losses, while North America and Europe experience a much smaller percentage decline. The revision suggests these inequalities have become even more pronounced. Damage vs. Cost: The damages are ~6x (revision: ~5x) larger than the mitigation costs of staying on the 2°C path. The price of inaction is higher than the price of action. The process is already underway: Cost per ton of CO₂ The damages are not only apparent in 2049 – they are already measurable today. According to various studies, the social, economic, and ecological damage cost of emitting 1 ton of CO₂ is currently about $1300 USD and is continuously rising. This value – the so-called Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) – shows how much damage a single ton of emissions causes in the world. The bottom line: It doesn’t matter whether we examine the damages as global GDP loss, annual aggregated loss, or per-ton social cost – the numbers align. Every approach leads to the same conclusion: continuing emissions is economically irrational. Why is this important for the voluntary carbon market (VCM) and carbon credits? If the social cost is $32–38 trillion USD annually, or $1300/tCO₂, then every ton of CO₂ not emitted represents real, quantifiable economic benefit. The VCM: Directs capital to where CO₂ reduction is cheapest – this accelerates the spread of renewables (e.g., solar PV) and energy efficiency investments. Creates demand for climate solutions, leading to economies of scale and price drops, particularly in the solar-wind-storage trio. Makes the burden sharing fairer by providing resources also where the damage is greatest but capacity to invest is lowest. The study’s main message: if damages multiply exceed mitigation costs, then the VCM is not a luxury, but a rational insurance policy. What does this mean for the reader and policymakers? Communication –> Let’s state it clearly: the cost of inaction is $4–5 thousand dollars per person per year, and $1300 per ton. Everyone needs to know this number. Policy and capital flow –> Public and private resources, including the voluntary carbon market, are crucial for accelerating rapid decarbonization – because it’s cheaper to prevent damage than to pay for it. Justice –> The damages disproportionately affect the least responsible regions; credit-based financing can help accelerate the spread of renewables where the benefit is greatest and the capacity to bear the cost is smallest. The message of the Nature study is crystal clear: if the price of climate damage is multiples of the mitigation costs even on an annual basis, and is already around $1300 per ton today, then every ton of CO₂ not emitted is a saving, not a cost. The carbon market and credits accelerate the spread of clean energy and open the path to energy independence for increasingly broader segments of society. Source: Adapted from ClimeNews

A The Economic Cost of Climate Change bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change

rampi — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 14:59:37 +0000

The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature Adrien Bilal & Diego R. Känzig – May 2024 “According to estimates from the study, the macroeconomic damages of climate change are six times greater than previously thought. We exploit the natural variability of global temperature and rely on time-series deviations. A 1°C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in global GDP. Global temperature shocks are much more strongly correlated with extreme climate events than the country-level temperature shocks typically used in the panel literature, which explains why our estimate is significantly larger. We use reduced-form evidence to estimate structural damage functions in a standard neoclassical growth model. Our results suggest a social cost of carbon of $1,056 per ton. (May 2024). (Update: August 2024 1065 USD/CO2ton, November 2024 this value was 1367 USD/CO2ton, and by September 2025 it increased to 1500 USD/CO2ton …the sec.) A standard warming scenario results in a 31% welfare loss in present value terms. Both are orders of magnitude larger than previous estimates and imply that unilateral carbon abatement policies are cost-effective for large countries like the United States.” – this is the summary of a new research finding with the following details. New Analysis Finds Economic Impact of Global Warming 6 Times Greater Than Expected In 2018, William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research, which showed that a 1°C increase in global average temperature would lead to a 1-3% decline in global economic output. Since then, this has been the conventional view on the economic impacts of global warming, but a new study by Adrien Bilal of Harvard University and Diego Känzig of Northwestern University reaches a very different conclusion. In their research paper titled “The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change”, published in May 2024: Global vs. Local Temperature, they conclude that the economic impact of global warming is six times greater than what Nordhaus claimed. In the introduction, the authors explain: “We reach this conclusion in two steps. First, we rely on a time-series local projection approach to estimate the impact of global temperature shocks on gross domestic product (GDP).” “This approach exploits the natural variability of global average temperature—the fluctuation source closest to climate change—which we show is a much stronger predictor of extreme climate events than country-level temperature. We find that a 1°C increase in global temperature reduces world GDP by 12% at its peak. Second, we use our reduced-form results to estimate structural damage functions in a simple neoclassical growth model. We find that climate change results in a 31% present-value welfare loss and a social cost of carbon of $1,056 per ton.” The Massive Economic Impact of Global Warming The Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a Swiss German-language daily newspaper founded in 1780, is known for its detailed reporting on international affairs. In an article about the economic research conducted by Bilal and Känzig, it writes that the long-term effects of global warming on the economy would be enormous—comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, that was only a temporary event (although those affected did not feel it as such), while climate change will have an impact for centuries. The Swiss-born Känzig told the NZZ: “When we first saw the result, we were shocked.” He and his co-author, Adrien Bilal, reviewed the research and repeatedly tested the model they used. But in the end, they were convinced of their results, which are particularly surprising from an economic perspective. “On the other hand, the result is very much in line with climate science research,” said Känzig. “When we talk to climate scientists, they paint a much more dramatic picture” than what William Nordhaus presented six years ago. Where does this discrepancy between previous research and the new study come from? After all, the difference is quite staggering. Känzig and Bilal noticed that previous economic model calculations used country-specific weather data to draw conclusions about economic impacts. However, this analysis ignores the fact that climate change is a global phenomenon. Country-specific data, for example, do not include ocean temperatures, even though they greatly influence how storms develop before moving inland. Comprehensive Analysis The general conclusion of the study is that extreme weather events such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, or high wind speeds will increase more than previously assumed by the economic models used. The more heatwaves there are, the more productivity declines, not only for outdoor workers but also for office workers. Events such as power outages are also more likely to occur. Another new approach of the study is that it analyzes not only the damages caused by declining productivity but also capital losses. “Rainfall, floods, or storms will cause significant damage to infrastructure,” says Känzig. Roads, power lines, and other infrastructure will be destroyed. This latest research shows that since the potential damages are so large, investing in climate protection is much more worthwhile than previously thought. Climate activists believe that this new research could lead to a rethinking of international climate policy—for example, in terms of investments in climate-friendly technologies aimed at mitigating the extent of global warming. Känzig also hopes for this. “Climate is a topic that is very close to my heart,” he says. At the beginning of his career, he completed internships at the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of England. He actually wanted to research monetary policy, “but then I realized that given the enormous importance of climate change, too little economic research is being done on the topic,” he said. Reaction to “The Research” Since the publication of the study, there has been broad agreement in the economic and scientific communities, but criticisms have also been voiced. Some argue that the calculations used in the latest model do not take into account the fact that the world is adapting to climate change. Känzig says this is a valid objection. “But today, no one can say how much the world will actually invest in adaptation measures.” Others criticize that the results are too optimistic because the analysis does not account for so-called tipping points—events where an ecosystem collapses due to warming—which would have catastrophic consequences. Känzig said he remains convinced that the economic damages caused by climate change have been significantly underestimated so far and that every new insight, such as this new study, serves to inform people about the severity of the impending climate crisis resulting from global warming. Conclusions on Global Warming and the Economy In the conclusion of their research, the authors write: “In this study, we show that the impact of climate change on economic activity is significant. By exploiting the natural climate variability of global average temperature, we obtain time-series estimates that are representative of the general effects of global warming. We find that a 1°C increase in global temperature persistently reduces global GDP, with a peak loss of 12%. This large effect is due to the surge in extreme climate events.” “In contrast, the local temperature shocks used in the traditional panel literature lead to minimal increases in extreme events and much smaller economic impacts. Our results collectively imply a social cost of carbon (SCC) of $1,056/tCO2 and a 31% welfare loss under a moderate warming scenario. These impacts are comparable to fighting a major war on home soil forever (emphasis added). Our results not only show that climate change poses a serious threat to the global economy but also have significant implications for carbon abatement policies. Many carbon abatement interventions cost between $27 and $95 per ton of CO2 reduced. The traditional SCC value ($151/tCO2) implies that these policies are only cost-effective if governments internalize the benefits for the entire world, as captured by the SCC. However, a government that internalizes only domestic benefits evaluates the benefits of mitigation using the domestic cost of carbon (DCC).” “The DCC is always lower than the SCC because the damages to a single country are smaller than the damages to the entire world. For example, traditional estimates based on local shocks suggest that the U.S. DCC is $30/tCO2, making unilateral abatement prohibitively expensive. However, our new estimates suggest that the U.S. DCC will be $211/tCO2, greatly exceeding policy costs. In this case, unilateral carbon abatement policies are cost-effective for the United States.” The Lesson Mark Z. Jacobson is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University. He knows a thing or two about global warming and how to take action to mitigate its effects. He is also a good friend of CleanTechnica, having written numerous articles for our small community on the edge of the internet. I asked Professor Jacobson what he thought about this latest economic research, and he replied: “This study adds to a growing list of studies suggesting that the social cost of carbon and the economic damages from climate change are much higher than previously thought.” Oceans cover nearly two-thirds of our planet. Ignoring the effects of warmer ocean water due to global warming simply leads to unrealistic results. People may argue with Bilal and Känzig’s conclusions—is the social cost of carbon over a thousand dollars per ton, or just $574.22? Such questions are like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The primary value of the study is that when examining the economic impact of global warming, we must consider the entire Earth, not just the landmasses. For this alone, they deserve a Nobel Prize. Source: CleanTechnica

A The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The rising social cost of carbon

rampi — Mon, 05 Sep 2022 14:16:51 +0000

Social cost of carbon more than triple the current federal estimate, new study finds A multi-year study of the social cost of carbon, a critical input for climate policy analysis, finds that every additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere costs society $185—far higher than the current federal estimate of $51 per ton. Peer-Reviewed Publication RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE (RFF) Since 2017, Resources for the Future (RFF) has been working toward updating the scientific basis that underlies the social cost of carbon (SCC). The SCC is an estimate of the economic damages, in dollars, resulting from the addition of an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into Earth’s atmosphere. The value has been used widely to quantify the economic benefits of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including vehicle fuel economy standards, power plant regulations, and rules that reduce emissions from oil and gas infrastructure. As part of these efforts, RFF’s Social Cost of Carbon Initiative assembled a large group of multidisciplinary researchers across many institutions to update the science that underlies the SCC in a manner fully responsive to a series of recommendations from a landmark 2017 report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). After years of robust modeling and analysis, a multi-institutional team led by researchers from Resources for the Future (RFF) and the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), has released an updated social cost of carbon estimate that reflects new methodologies and key scientific advancements. The study, published today in the journal Nature, finds that each additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere costs society $185 per ton—3.6 times the current US federal estimate of $51 per ton. The social cost of carbon is a critical metric that measures the economic damages, in dollars, that result from the emission of one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A high social cost of carbon can motivate more stringent climate policies, as it increases the estimated benefits of reducing greenhouse gases. “Our estimate, which draws on recent advances in the scientific and economic literature, shows that we are vastly underestimating the harm of each additional ton of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere,” said RFF President and CEO Richard G. Newell, who coauthored the peer-reviewed paper. “The implication is that the benefits of government policies and other actions that reduce global warming pollution are greater than has been assumed.” The study, led by UC Berkeley Associate Professor David Anthoff and RFF Fellow Kevin Rennert, brought together leading researchers from institutions across the United States to develop important updates to social cost of carbon modeling. These advances include consideration of the probability of different socioeconomic and emissions trajectories far into the future; the incorporation of a modern representation of the climate system; and state-of-the-art scientific methodologies for assessing the effects of climate change on agriculture, temperature-related deaths, energy expenditures, and sea-level rise. The estimate also takes into account an updated approach to evaluating future climate risks through ‘discounting’ that is linked to future economic uncertainty. The $185-per-ton value is the central estimate of many that includes the inherent uncertainty in these trajectories. Notably, the new Nature study is fully responsive to the methodological recommendations of a seminal 2017 National Academies report co-chaired by Newell and RFF’s Maureen Cropper. A federal interagency working group on the social costs of greenhouse gases, disbanded during the previous administration but reestablished by an executive order from President Biden, is also updating its social cost of carbon estimate using the 2017 recommendations. “We hope that our research helps inform the anticipated updated social cost of carbon from the government’s interagency working group,” said Brian C. Prest, coauthor and director of RFF’s Social Cost of Carbon Initiative. “Decisions are only as strong as the science behind them. And our study finds that carbon dioxide emissions are more costly to society than many people likely realize.” Aside from the estimate itself, a major output of the study is the Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, an open-source software platform that allows users to replicate the team’s methodology or compute their own social cost of carbon estimates. Also released today is a new data tool, the Social Cost of Carbon Explorer, which demonstrates the working mechanics of the GIVE model and allows users to explore the data in detail. “Our hope is that the freely available, open-source GIVE model we’re introducing today forms the foundation for continuous improvement of the estimates by an expanded community of scientists worldwide,” Rennert said. “A completely transparent methodology has been a guiding principle for our work, which is also directly relevant to other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxides.” Anthoff emphasized that the diverse expertise of the paper’s authors stems from the multi-faceted nature of the research. “Estimating the social cost of carbon requires inputs from many academic disciplines,” he said. “When we started this project, we knew that we would only succeed by assembling a team of leading researchers in each discipline to contribute their expertise. I am especially proud of the all-star group of researchers across so many leading institutions that jointly worked on this paper.” Source: EurekAlert Previously: The Social Cost of Carbon

A The rising social cost of carbon bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.