The US is certainly not the only country on the planet emitting CO2. It emits around 13% of the planetary total. In making estimates for future centuries what assumptions must be made about what courses of action will be taken by each or all of the countries representing the remaining 87%, for decades from now? And on what empirical basis can one such assumption determined to be a better forecast of the future than another?
We can be sure that if our species survives until 2300 CE, so shall the confusions over price vs value. Controlling carbon emissions in the USA to match a hypothetically correct carbon price that reflects the assumption that the other nations will all achieve their currently-stated intentions to be carbon neutral is both inconsistent and unrealistic. This argument arises only for historical reasons. The future will be different.
The more realistic path would be for the US to accept a carbon budget drawn up by worldwide agreement, the US to comply therewith, either by setting and managing a price of carbon that would do so regardless of any theoretically calculated price or cost, or by any other means the US chose. Alternatively, the ideal path would be a worldwide agreement, on an optimum setting for the earth's thermostat, with each nation and institution on earth voluntarily, enthusiastically and humanely participating to sustain the well-being of all.
I read through the report from the IWG. It is devoid of science. In fact the National Science Foundation is missing from the IWG!
The basic problem with the document is that it seeks to estimate costs of added CO2 but ignores benefits. The benefits are well known and documented scientifically. The largest probably is the improvement in agriculture that is due to the higher CO2 in the air. There are thousands of studies of the impact of higher CO2 on plant quality and quantity (usually by Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiments). For nearly all major crops adding 300 ppm to the air gives a 30 to 50% increase in productivity for the same amount of seeds, fertilizer, and other inputs. Using just a 10% increase for the 140 ppm added to the air in the last 200 years and based on worldwide commercial agricultural production of ~$8 trillion in 2018, this gives a benefit of around $1 trillion. With emissions in 2019 of 38 billion tons, this is a benefit of about $25/ton of CO2.
Other benefits include reduction of arid (desert) areas due to the added CO2 allowing plants to live with less water in the ground. This was estimated in 205 to have decreased the arid areas by about 15% over the 40 year period for which accurate satellite images are available.
Also, all life on earth lives better with a less cold environment. There are far more deaths in the coldest months of the year than in the warmest months. Many studies have shown this.
D. Onozuka and A. Hagihara, “Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk attributable to temperature in Japan”, Scientific Reports (2017), 7:39538 DOI: 10.1038/srep39538. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39538
A final problem with the report is that assumes that a ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere today will have any impact far in the future. It ignores the scientific fact that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, too. Plants (and phytoplankton in the oceans) absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Only a small portion of the emitted CO2 remains in the air for decades, especially now that plants are growing more rapidly and thus absorbing more CO2.
It would be interesting to know who in the Biden administration actually have stopped emitting fossil CO2. They probably do not even know what it actually means practically.
The full retail price for 1 metric ton of fossil fuel carbon dioxide, just as it comes out of the tailpipe of your car is $393 per metric ton.
The calculation is $3.50 per gallon of gasoline (without alcohol added) x 19.6 lb of CO2 per gallon of gasoline ( so far we have .17 cents per pound) x 1000 kg = 2204 lb => $ 393.68261 dollars required to buy enough gasoline to make 1 metric ton of fossil fuel CO2. This calculation uses the CO2 value for gasoline not diluted with ethanol.
So Trump said something under $10 a ton. the Biden administration is saying something around $50 a ton. This retail price calculation indicates Biden is going in the right direction.
You have the price of gasoline used to produce a ton of CO2. That is not the Social Cost, which is based on potential benefits and damages from having the CO2 in the air.
Climate models have no predictive value, Roger. There is no valid evidence human CO2 emissions are increasing, will increase, or even can increase air temperature.
If Roger Sr. says otherwise, he's wrong.
Not wanting to be disrespectful, but my two reviewers are the only climate scientists I've encountered who understand physical error analysis.
All the others -- more than 2 dozen, mostly climate modelers -- were utterly ignorant of it. That's a demonstrable fact. These people are untrained and unable to evaluate the reliability of their own models.
I know it takes courage, Roger, but someone has to speak up strongly. Everyone in a position to do something, to whom I've written, has responded with silence.
Yes, the higher the discount rate the less the future is valued. Because most damage occurs in the distant future discount rate choice has a big effect on the estimates. Most people argue about the choice of discount rate, but they really should be paying attention to the heavily skewed time series of damage. Let me know if this makes sense.
At a 3% discount rate “55% of total damage estimated by the integrated assessment model with the largest damages from carbon dioxide occurs from about 2100 to 2300”
If I understand correctly then at a lower discount rate more than 55% of the total damage would occur from 2100 to 2300 because the future is valued more with a lower discount rate.
Your point however is that the bigger driver is that more of the impacts occur later. Tol has pointed out that also assumes that no one does anything to address the infrastructure to prevent those impacts in the meantime.
Correct. And the 55% is for the damage function with the greatest damage. For the other 2 damage functions the proportion of future damage post-2100 will be much greater. See this thread for some details: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1366411853044178948?s=20
The US is certainly not the only country on the planet emitting CO2. It emits around 13% of the planetary total. In making estimates for future centuries what assumptions must be made about what courses of action will be taken by each or all of the countries representing the remaining 87%, for decades from now? And on what empirical basis can one such assumption determined to be a better forecast of the future than another?
We can be sure that if our species survives until 2300 CE, so shall the confusions over price vs value. Controlling carbon emissions in the USA to match a hypothetically correct carbon price that reflects the assumption that the other nations will all achieve their currently-stated intentions to be carbon neutral is both inconsistent and unrealistic. This argument arises only for historical reasons. The future will be different.
The more realistic path would be for the US to accept a carbon budget drawn up by worldwide agreement, the US to comply therewith, either by setting and managing a price of carbon that would do so regardless of any theoretically calculated price or cost, or by any other means the US chose. Alternatively, the ideal path would be a worldwide agreement, on an optimum setting for the earth's thermostat, with each nation and institution on earth voluntarily, enthusiastically and humanely participating to sustain the well-being of all.
I read through the report from the IWG. It is devoid of science. In fact the National Science Foundation is missing from the IWG!
The basic problem with the document is that it seeks to estimate costs of added CO2 but ignores benefits. The benefits are well known and documented scientifically. The largest probably is the improvement in agriculture that is due to the higher CO2 in the air. There are thousands of studies of the impact of higher CO2 on plant quality and quantity (usually by Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiments). For nearly all major crops adding 300 ppm to the air gives a 30 to 50% increase in productivity for the same amount of seeds, fertilizer, and other inputs. Using just a 10% increase for the 140 ppm added to the air in the last 200 years and based on worldwide commercial agricultural production of ~$8 trillion in 2018, this gives a benefit of around $1 trillion. With emissions in 2019 of 38 billion tons, this is a benefit of about $25/ton of CO2.
Other benefits include reduction of arid (desert) areas due to the added CO2 allowing plants to live with less water in the ground. This was estimated in 205 to have decreased the arid areas by about 15% over the 40 year period for which accurate satellite images are available.
Also, all life on earth lives better with a less cold environment. There are far more deaths in the coldest months of the year than in the warmest months. Many studies have shown this.
A. Gasparrini, et al., “Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study”, The Lancet (2015) DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0 http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962114-0.pdf
D. Onozuka and A. Hagihara, “Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk attributable to temperature in Japan”, Scientific Reports (2017), 7:39538 DOI: 10.1038/srep39538. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39538
A final problem with the report is that assumes that a ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere today will have any impact far in the future. It ignores the scientific fact that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, too. Plants (and phytoplankton in the oceans) absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Only a small portion of the emitted CO2 remains in the air for decades, especially now that plants are growing more rapidly and thus absorbing more CO2.
Two corrections:
"Using just a 10% increase " I meant "Using just a 15% increase "
"This was estimated in 205" I meant "This was estimated in 2015"
It would be interesting to know who in the Biden administration actually have stopped emitting fossil CO2. They probably do not even know what it actually means practically.
The full retail price for 1 metric ton of fossil fuel carbon dioxide, just as it comes out of the tailpipe of your car is $393 per metric ton.
The calculation is $3.50 per gallon of gasoline (without alcohol added) x 19.6 lb of CO2 per gallon of gasoline ( so far we have .17 cents per pound) x 1000 kg = 2204 lb => $ 393.68261 dollars required to buy enough gasoline to make 1 metric ton of fossil fuel CO2. This calculation uses the CO2 value for gasoline not diluted with ethanol.
So Trump said something under $10 a ton. the Biden administration is saying something around $50 a ton. This retail price calculation indicates Biden is going in the right direction.
You have the price of gasoline used to produce a ton of CO2. That is not the Social Cost, which is based on potential benefits and damages from having the CO2 in the air.
Don't know if this is the second posting , but ...
"<em>Pricing carbon makes good sense ... </em>
<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full/">No it doesn't</a>.
Climate models have no predictive value, Roger. There is no valid evidence human CO2 emissions are increasing, will increase, or even can increase air temperature.
If Roger Sr. says otherwise, he's wrong.
Not wanting to be disrespectful, but my two reviewers are the only climate scientists I've encountered who understand physical error analysis.
All the others -- more than 2 dozen, mostly climate modelers -- were utterly ignorant of it. That's a demonstrable fact. These people are untrained and unable to evaluate the reliability of their own models.
The whole of CO2 alarmism is nonsensical. See, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abstract/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391/">Negligence, Non-Science and Consensus Climatology</a>.
I know it takes courage, Roger, but someone has to speak up strongly. Everyone in a position to do something, to whom I've written, has responded with silence.
I wish I had this information when I was preparing comments for New York's value of carbon guidance (https://wp.me/p8hgeb-yo).
I will use this in the future though - thanks.
One question:
Does the fraction of total damages occurring from 2100 to 2300 change using a different discount rate?
Roger Caiazza
Yes, the higher the discount rate the less the future is valued. Because most damage occurs in the distant future discount rate choice has a big effect on the estimates. Most people argue about the choice of discount rate, but they really should be paying attention to the heavily skewed time series of damage. Let me know if this makes sense.
Just to confirm and thank you for responding.
At a 3% discount rate “55% of total damage estimated by the integrated assessment model with the largest damages from carbon dioxide occurs from about 2100 to 2300”
If I understand correctly then at a lower discount rate more than 55% of the total damage would occur from 2100 to 2300 because the future is valued more with a lower discount rate.
Your point however is that the bigger driver is that more of the impacts occur later. Tol has pointed out that also assumes that no one does anything to address the infrastructure to prevent those impacts in the meantime.
Correct. And the 55% is for the damage function with the greatest damage. For the other 2 damage functions the proportion of future damage post-2100 will be much greater. See this thread for some details: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1366411853044178948?s=20