Literature DB >> 36049503

Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2.

Frank Errickson1, Brian C Prest2, Lisa Rennels3, Kevin Rennert2, Richard G Newell2, William Pizer2, Cora Kingdon3, Jordan Wingenroth2, Roger Cooke2, Bryan Parthum4, David Smith4, Kevin Cromar5,6, Delavane Diaz7, Frances C Moore8, Ulrich K Müller9, Richard J Plevin10, Adrian E Raftery11, Hana Ševčíková12, Hannah Sheets13, James H Stock14, Tammy Tan4, Mark Watson9, Tony E Wong13, David Anthoff15.   

Abstract

The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit-cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44-$413 per tCO2: 5%-95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2%, a value 3.6 times higher than the US government's current value of $51 per tCO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the new open-source Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared with estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate policies.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36049503     DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   69.504


  12 in total

1.  Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production.

Authors:  Marshall Burke; Solomon M Hsiang; Edward Miguel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Emissions - the 'business as usual' story is misleading.

Authors:  Zeke Hausfather; Glen P Peters
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Equity is more important for the social cost of methane than climate uncertainty.

Authors:  Frank C Errickson; Klaus Keller; William D Collins; Vivek Srikrishnan; David Anthoff
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Global Health Impacts for Economic Models of Climate Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kevin R Cromar; Susan C Anenberg; John R Balmes; Allen A Fawcett; Marya Ghazipura; Julia M Gohlke; Masahiro Hashizume; Peter Howard; Eric Lavigne; Karen Levy; Jaime Madrigano; Jeremy A Martinich; Erin A Mordecai; Mary B Rice; Shubhayu Saha; Noah C Scovronick; Fatih Sekercioglu; Erik R Svendsen; Benjamin F Zaitchik; Gary Ewart
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2022-07

5.  Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test.

Authors:  Nicole Glanemann; Sven N Willner; Anders Levermann
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Persistent inequality in economically optimal climate policies.

Authors:  Paolo Gazzotti; Johannes Emmerling; Giacomo Marangoni; Andrea Castelletti; Kaj-Ivar van der Wijst; Andries Hof; Massimo Tavoni
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon.

Authors:  Frances C Moore; Uris Baldos; Thomas Hertel; Delavane Diaz
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  The mortality cost of carbon.

Authors:  R Daniel Bressler
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.