The Pros And Mostly Cons Of CO2 Emissions

The Pros And Mostly Cons Of CO2 Emissions

What, quantitatively, is the social cost of carbon dioxide—the economic damage caused by a 1-ton increase in emissions or the benefits of a 1-ton decrease?

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel power plants, motor vehicles, and other human sources are the primary driver of global climate change, which threatens people and ecosystems around the world.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine aims to ensure that estimates of the social cost of carbon dioxide used by the US government continue to reflect state-of-the-art science and evidence.

Committee member Robert E. Kopp, an associate professor in the department of earth and planetary sciences at Rutgers University, and associate director of the Rutgers Energy Institute, discusses the topic.

Q: What is the social cost of carbon dioxide?

A: It’s an economic measure of the damage to human welfare from each ton of carbon dioxide we emit.

When you emit a ton of carbon dioxide, you increase the Earth’s average temperature by a tiny fraction of a degree for many centuries to come. That temperature increase has numerous impacts—mostly negative, but some positive—on people and ecosystems.

For example, it slightly increases the probability that people will die from heat-related causes and the probability of crop failure in warm regions, and it also slightly decreases the probability that people will die from cold-related causes.

 Get The Latest From InnerSelf

Many processes besides mortality and crop growth are also temperature-sensitive, and turning up the global thermostat a tiny bit like we do when we emit an extra ton of carbon dioxide causes many small impacts to them. These small impacts affect human welfare, and it’s these welfare effects that the social cost of carbon dioxide attempts to estimate.

Q: How is the social cost of carbon dioxide used?

A: When the US government estimates the costs and benefits of proposed regulations, it uses the social cost of carbon dioxide to translate reductions of carbon dioxide emissions into monetary benefits that can be compared with the costs and non-climate benefits of implementing the regulations.

Currently, the US government’s central estimate of the social cost of carbon dioxide is about $40 per ton. That corresponds to about 30 cents per gallon of gasoline burned or, in New Jersey, to about 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour on the electric bill.

Q: What does the new National Academies report assess?

A: The report describes steps the US government can take, both in the near term and over the longer term, to ensure that the social cost of carbon dioxide estimates represent the best science available over time. It lays out a framework focused on the scientific basis, transparency, and uncertainty quantification of the analysis.

It describes a modular approach for undertaking the four key steps of the social cost of carbon dioxide estimation: the projection of future socioeconomics and emissions, the translation of emissions into climate change, the translation of climate change into damages to human welfare, and the discounting of damages over time.

Q: Why is benefit-cost analysis of climate change useful?

A: Currently, we humans emit about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, and every ton of carbon dioxide we emit increases average global temperature. The scientific community’s best assessment at the moment is that every trillion tons we emit leads to an increase of about 0.2 to 0.7 degrees Celsius (0.4 to 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

To stop additional global warming requires bringing net emissions to zero. That’s why the Paris climate change agreement, reached in December 2015, set a goal of doing so in the second half of this century.

A central economic question is how fast we can achieve net-zero emissions without the costs of the shift outweighing the benefits. That’s one of the reasons why benefit-cost analysis is useful. Theoretically, you could stop additional global warming by bringing global emissions to zero this year, but making the transition that quickly would be extraordinarily costly.

When we’re talking about climate policies, we’re always talking about the trade-offs between the damage we’re doing by emitting carbon dioxide and the costs (and non-climate benefits) of transitioning to a clean energy economy. Benefit-cost analysis helps navigate these trade-offs.

Q: How do you think the use of the social cost of carbon dioxide will fare in the new administration?

A: The US government’s use of the social cost of carbon dioxide estimates began in 2008 in response to a court ruling, and that obligation continues. If the government wants to propose regulations that decrease or increase carbon dioxide emissions, it is required to analyze the economic consequences of doing so.

And, regardless of what happens at the federal level, the social cost of carbon dioxide is also being used in states like California, Minnesota, and New York to inform their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Q: How does this National Academies report relate to your research?

A: Much of the work of my research group, the Rutgers Earth System Science & Policy Lab, relates to the interface between physical changes in the climate and the economy, and to the characterization of uncertainty in physical changes and economic consequences.

In 2015, I and collaborators at the University of California, Berkeley and the Rhodium Group, wrote Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus. Based on how people in the past have responded to variability in the climate, this book estimated the potential future economic damages climate change could cause in the United States. Now, joined also by collaborators at the University of Chicago, we’ve launched a new consortium, the Climate Impact Lab, that’s pursuing similar analyses at a global scale.

Source: Rutgers University

Related Books:

{amazonWS:searchindex=Books;keywords=carbon dioxide emissions;maxresults=3}


follow InnerSelf on


 Get The Latest By Email



Why Donald Trump Could Be History's Biggest Loser
by Robert Jennings,
Updated July 2, 20020 - This whole coronavirus pandemic is costing a fortune, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 fortunes, all of unknown size. Oh yeah, and, hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, of people will die…
Blue-Eyes vs Brown Eyes: How Racism is Taught
by Marie T. Russell, InnerSelf
In this 1992 Oprah Show episode, award-winning anti-racism activist and educator Jane Elliott taught the audience a tough lesson about racism by demonstrating just how easy it is to learn prejudice.
A Change Is Gonna Come...
by Marie T. Russell, InnerSelf
(May 30, 2020) As I watch the news on the events in Philadephia and other cities in the country, my heart aches for what is transpiring. I know that this is part of the greater change that is taking…
A Song Can Uplift the Heart and Soul
by Marie T. Russell, InnerSelf
I have several ways that I use to clear the darkness from my mind when I find it has crept in. One is gardening, or spending time in nature. The other is silence. Another way is reading. And one that…
Mascot for the Pandemic and Theme Song for Social Distancing and Isolation
by Marie T. Russell, InnerSelf
I came across a song recently and as I listened to the lyrics, I thought it would be a perfect song as a "theme song" for these times of social isolation. (Lyrics below the video.)