szén-dioxid Archívum - Voluntary Carbon Registry

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.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Are We Emitting?

rampi — Tue, 03 Aug 2021 13:10:10 +0000

Visualizing the Quantities of Climate Change By Matthew Conlen At standard temperature and pressure, one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) would fill a sphere 32 feet (about 9.8 meters) in diameter. The average car in the U.S. will produce this over a three-month period. The amount of carbon dioxide released due to burning fossil fuels has been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century. In 1900, almost 2 billion metric tons of CO₂ were released due to fossil fuel usage. By 1960, that number had more than quadrupled to over 9 billion metric tons. The latest data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center shows that over 35 billion metric tons of CO₂ were released in 2014.* Because emissions are only partially reduced by natural land and ocean sinks, the rest of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels remains in Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in the annual year-over-year rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as seen here. Explore NASA’s climate vital signs to learn more about carbon dioxide and other factors related to climate change. * Latest annual data from CDIAC Data sources: Our World in Data, CDIAC

A How Much Carbon Dioxide Are We Emitting? bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.

The price of carbon credit is the fight for values

rampi — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:04:31 +0000

Discount rates: A boring thing you should know about (with otters!) Unless you’re an economics geek, you’ve probably never heard of “discount rates.” Behind that technical term, however, hides a social and ethical debate at the heart of climate policy. David Roberts explains (otters included). How much is it worth to us today to avoid climate disruption later this century? To understand how that question has typically been answered, you need to understand what economists call “discount rates,” key parameters in the economic models used to assess climate policy costs. Such models inform policymaking and shape conventional wisdom, but their use of discount rates has led them to lowball the threat and recommend insufficient action to meet it. You see my problem here: You’re already bored as sh*t. And the literature on this is as voluminous as it is technical. You could be much more bored. Trust me. But don’t give up! It really does matter. Understanding discount rates will help you understand the climate-policy landscape — not only the technical details, but the struggle over values that lurks underneath them. So stick with me. To help counter the soporific effects of the subject, I shall endeavor to explain it in a lively, accessible fashion. Failing that, I’ll use otters. OK! Let’s recall a vexing fact about climate change: There’s a substantial time lag between causes and effects. Greenhouse gases emitted today affect global temperatures in 50 years or so, just as we’re experiencing temperature rise caused by emissions 50 years ago. This time lag complicates efforts to do something about the problem, to say the least, as people are not generally temperamentally inclined to sacrifice now to gain benefits (or to avoid costs) 50 years down the road. We prefer instant gratification; we’re pretty myopic. The policy challenge, then, is to pull those damages out of the future and into the present. We need to amplify that distant signal so that it is heard in everyday economic decision-making. The preferred way to achieve this goal is to put a price on carbon, via a tax or a cap. The carbon price is meant to reflect the damages emissions will cause later, or, in dork-speak, to “internalize the externalities.” To do this properly — to figure out the “right” price for a ton of CO2 emissions — we have to answer two questions. One, how much damage will a ton of carbon do? And two, how much is it worth to us to avoid that amount of damage? Climate science can help answer the first question, though it can’t, and likely never will be able to, give us a precise figure. Especially at regional or more granular levels, precision is impossible given the limitations of current science and the inherent complexities of the global atmospheric system. But if we want a figure or range of figures to work with, we can choose from the center of the probability distribution and get something that’s “good enough for government work,” as they say. The second question is trickier. The physical sciences cannot answer it. How much future climate mitigation is worth to us today — what’s called the social cost of carbon — is a matter for economics and ethics. And it’s here that discount rates enter the picture. We must prepare ourselves with an otter. “Ready to sink my teeth in.” (Photo by Mike Baird.) To get our heads around discount rates, let’s first focus on how they work in individual decision-making. There are two concepts to grasp here: revealed time preferences and opportunity costs. (Hey, I just gave you an otter.) Here’s a thought experiment. Say I gave you a choice: I’ll give you $100 today or $100 in 10 years. You’d choose today, obviously. What if the choice was $70 today or $100 in 10 years? Hm … tougher. $50 today? If you choose $50, you’re saying you value dollars today twice as much you value as dollars 10 years from now. The degree to which you prefer present benefits (money today) over future benefits (money in the future) is known as your “revealed time preference.” It is “revealed” in that it is reflected in your savings and investment decisions, even if it is never articulated. Now, here’s another scenario. What would you pay today to avoid $100 in damage to your car a year from now? In making this decision, you would think about what else you could do with the money in the meantime. “Hm, I could put $100 in a bank account and, at a 3 percent interest rate, in a year I’d have $103. I could pay off the repair bill and pocket $3 in profit!” In a situation of 3 percent interest rates, it’s only worth $97 to you today to avoid $100 in damage a year from now. Otherwise you could make more by investing the money differently. What if the $100 in damage was in 10 years? Then it would only be worth $67. How about 30 years? Just $41. How much an investment pays relative to other uses of the same resources is known as its “opportunity cost” — for every investment, you choose to forego other opportunities. Revealed time preference and opportunity costs together lead us to discount the value of future benefits. Think of it like compound interest, only run in reverse; to an investor today, returns lose some percentage of their “net present value” each year they recede into the future. That percentage, the amount that a benefit declines in value each year into the future it extends, is the discount rate. In financial transactions, the discount rate is typically set somewhere around prevailing market interest rates. OK! We know what discount rates are and how they factor into savings and investment decisions. So far so good. Things get a little stickier and more complicated when it comes to climate change, though. So let’s take a quick otter break. Shutterstock – Eric Isselee Why are discount rates a vexed subject when it comes to climate change? Mainly because climate change involves long time spans and globe-spanning geography — and therefore multiple generations and multiple societies. Let’s focus on the time spans. Consider: If we have a discount rate of 3 percent — which is a fairly representative rate in economics — and we face $100 of climate damages in 2100 (roughly 87 years from now), it is worth about $7 to us to avoid it. Hardly anything. To make it more vivid, imagine climate change were on track to cause $5 trillion ($5,000,000,000,000) in damages by the end of the century. That’s an unthinkably large number. (Go ahead, try to think about it.) And it represents unthinkable suffering. But at a discount rate of 3 percent, it would be worth just $382 billion to us today to avoid it. For perspective, that’s a little more than half the annual U.S. military budget. It starts to seem a little absurd. And it gets even crazier if you apply a discount rate of 5 percent, as some people suggest (5 percent is roughly the return on U.S. Treasury bills). That would mean avoiding $5 trillion in damages in 2100 is worth about $72 billion today. By comparison, that’s just over what China expects to invest in high-speed rail this year. So you see: If we use discount rates in the 3-5 percent range, we can’t justify spending much of anything on climate policy today. And that’s what some popular modeling shows. Yale economist William Nordhaus, for instance, uses a discount rate of 3 percent, so his modeling tells us that all we need at the moment is a modest (around $5/ton) carbon tax. (Or, put another way, the social cost of carbon is $5 in today’s dollars.) [UPDATE: OK, this is slightly off. Nordhaus’s optimal CO2 price was $7.40 a ton in 2005, meant to rise 2 or 3 percent a year, so it would be around $9 or $10 today. Still pretty low.] If that doesn’t jibe with your moral intuitions, you’re not alone. U.K. economist Nicholas Stern, in his famed Stern Review, used largely the same scientific data as Nordhaus, but with a discount rate of just 0.1 percent. [UPDATE: Stern used 0.1 percent for time preference but 1.4 percent for the full discount rate; my bad.] Not surprisingly, Stern’s modeling suggests that the social cost of carbon is closer to $85 a ton and rising. Again, these two, the “delayer” and the “alarmist,” do not disagree on the scientific facts of climate change. They just disagree about how much we should value damages to future people. That’s the difference between apathy and panic. So what should the discount rate be? What number should economists use when modeling climate change policy? And how do we decide? Before we get into that heaviness, we need a little otter. Otter – neelsky So who’s right about the discount rate, Nordhaus or Stern? Suffice to say, this is a subject of vigorous dispute. If you want to dig in, you have many long and excruciatingly boring journal articles to choose from. I will merely scratch the surface here. Long story short: There’s no “right” answer, only a judgment call. Those who argue for a higher discount rate (in the 3-5 percent range), like Nordhaus himself [PDF], favor what they see as a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach. Ours is not to ask what the discount rate “should” be, ours is but to determine people’s actual time preferences as revealed in their everyday market behavior (i.e., look to prevailing market interest rates). It’s the only way to avoid “paternalism,” smuggling moral judgments into economics. One of their primary assumptions is that people in the future will be richer than us, and thus better prepared to deal with climate damages. If it’s a choice between making them richer and reducing their climate damages, we should generally lean toward making them richer. Only if climate mitigation investments offer a rate of return higher than prevailing interest rates are they worthwhile. Otherwise, we’d be better off just putting the money in a bank. For my part, I find arguments for a lower (or even zero) discount rate much more persuasive. This does not strike me as an area where “paternalism” can or should be avoided. We’re literally the parents (and grandparents) in this situation! First, let’s discuss this notion that people’s revealed time preferences are a kind of neutral baseline discount rate, devoid of ethical judgment. I like this point from professor Paul Kelleher, who wrote a short review on “energy policy and the social discount rate” [PDF]. He’s responding here to Martin Weitzman, who argues that the social discount rate should reflect prevailing interest rates (i.e, prevailing time preferences): Weitzman is surely correct that prevailing interest rates reveal ethically relevant information. But it is information about how individuals, acting as individuals and largely in their own interests, weight present versus future well-being. However, the social discount rate should reflect explicitly moral, other-regarding judgments about the relative importance of well-being that exists far into the future. It is by no means clear that individuals’ self-regarding behavior yields any insight whatsoever about what even those same individuals believe we owe to future generations. Right. It’s one thing for an investor to make decisions about how much future value she will sacrifice for present value. It’s another for her to make decisions about how much value future people will sacrifice for her present value. Those are decisions that affect other people, paradigmatically ethical decisions, so it is no longer her discount rate alone that’s relevant. There’s no avoiding ethical judgment here. More arguments against high discount rates can be found in this post from NRDC chief economist Laurie Johnson (to whom we will return later). I’ll share her top-line points. First: An increasingly disrupted climate may hamper economic productivity, causing economic growth rates to deviate below their historical trajectories. If worse-case climate risks materialize, climate change could even reverse economic growth. In that instance, people in...

A The price of carbon credit is the fight for values bejegyzés először Voluntary Carbon Registry-én jelent meg.