Social cost of climate change too low, Stanford scientists say (should be $220/ton, not $37)

[OKIsItJustMe]

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/ssoe-sco010915.php

[font face=Serif]Public Release: 12-Jan-2015
[font size=5]Social cost of climate change too low, Stanford scientists say[/font]
[font size=4]The 'social cost' of carbon dioxide emissions may not be $37, as previously estimated by a recent US government study, but $220.[/font]

Stanford School of Engineering

[font size=3]The economic damage caused by a ton of CO2 emissions-often referred to as the "social cost of carbon-could actually be six times higher than the value that the United States uses to guide current energy regulations, and possibly future mitigation policies, Stanford scientists say.

A recent U.S. government study concluded, based on the results of three widely used economic impact models, that an additional ton of CO2 emitted in 2015 would cause US$37 worth of economic damages. These damages are expected to take various forms, including decreased agricultural yields and harm to human health related to climate change.

But according to a new study, published online this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, the actual cost could be much higher. "We estimate that the social cost of carbon is not $37, as previously estimated, but $220," said study coauthor Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences.

Based on the findings, countries may want to increase their efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, said study coauthor Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in the Department of Management Science and Engineering. "If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."

…[/font][/font]

[PDJane]

1. Thank you.

Yes. Every little bit will help, and the more little bits, the better.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. You’re welcome! (no text)

[FBaggins]

3. The cleaner options would instantly skyrocket in value

The challenge would be getting consumers to actually pay the cost of the transition

[GliderGuider]

4. That would be an extra $1.70 per gallon of gasoline.

That doesn't seem like a very high price to save the world...

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. I used to say…

“So long as SUV’s are popular, gas is too cheap.”

Sure enough, gas prices are down somewhat and SUV sales are up. Do these people really think that gas prices won’t go back up again?

[Nihil]

6. Your last 8 words are redundant and the answer is "No".

They are complete morons who have no concept of anything outside of their petty short-sighted over-consumption.

If only they could be guaranteed to be the first creatures to be killed off as a result of their actions ...

Sadly, the world just isn't a fair place.

[The2ndWheel]

7. Everyone has a different way of adapting to a situation

One way of looking at cheaper energy is to go out and use more of it. Plenty of people have said that lower energy prices are great for the consumer, especially the little guy. More people have extra money in their pocket, and they'll go spend it, theoretically creating more jobs.

All of that activity will then of course contribute to our continued environmental predicament.

As they say, we can't win.