Experts Debunk Obama’s ‘Social Cost Of Carbon’ Estimate — It Might Be Negative!

obama CPPA soon-to-be-published paper challenges the Obama administration’s so-called “social cost of carbon” estimate, which puts a monetary value on the supposed future damages from global warming.

But the new study’s authors not only say the administration’s “social cost of carbon” (SCC) is overblown, they also argue it might actually be negative based on observed temperature increases, not just climate models. That means there’s actually benefits to emitting carbon dioxide.

“The resulting Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are much smaller than those from models based on simulated parameters,” wrote Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, along with David Kreutzer and Kevin Dayaratna, both economists at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

McKitrick’s study applied a recent study of climate sensitivity to two climate models used by federal agencies to estimate the SCC. In one model, the “SCC falls by 30-50% depending on the discount rate,” they noted, while in a second model “average SCC falls by over 80%.”

Most shockingly, when McKitrick and his coauthors analyzed the government’s so-called FUND model, they found it “yields a substantial (about 40 percent or more) probability of a negative SCC through the first half of the 21st century.”

The new study calls into question the science used by the Obama administration to come up with its SCC estimate, which is used by federal agencies to justify huge monetary benefits from reducing CO2 through regulations.

In 2013, the administration raised the SCC to $35 per metric ton.

That increased measurement of the supposed damages from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere was used to help justify Environmental Protection Agency regulations on emissions from power plants. EPA says its so-called Clean Power Plan would yield “climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Added CO2 has no significant effect on climate but does enhance plant growth (more food) so the ‘cost’ is definitely negative.

    The Andean/Saharan ice age, which occurred at about 10 times the current CO2 level, ruled out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.

    Emergent structures analysis http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com demonstrates that climate change since before 1900 can be explained (97% match with measurements) by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    How many more sleeps till this lying machine administration takes a hike ? They can’t even refer to CO2 anymore because it is obviously hugely beneficial to life on earth .

    Global warming was rebranded to climate change and Co2 is being rebranded into “carbon” . Was the failed global warming hypothesis based on Carbon ? No . Were the IPCC projections of doom based on Carbon ? No . They were based on grossly overstated and inaccurate climate models of Carbon Dioxide not Carbon . Now they are into a new level of lying to the public as each of their fabrications gets exposed for the lies they are .

    Global warming is one of the best things that could happen to the planet and they Know it . Time to muddy the water and try to keep puffing hot air into a rapidly deflating scam .

    Taxpayers and utility customers have been screwed out of $$Billions and that will not go down easy .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Though Obama’s “Social Cost Of Carbon” estimate is easily challenged, the cost of his actions to flight climate change are certain. It has already cost thousands of jobs in coal mining and if everything happens that activists are calling for it will cost millions of jobs. It also means billions if not trillions of additional costs to the US consumer.

    The benefits of a warming world and higher levels of carbon dioxide were ignored, I bet the report ignored or down played the impact of fighting this non-existent problem.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Global Warming Armageddon con game has gotten this far in part because governments have been allowed to run unlimited deficits. $$Billions in tax payer grants to dubious businesses and ” have not ” countries with their beaks open .
    Warming is ongoing and is overall beneficial . Obama ‘s administration will go down as the biggest cluster F in USA history .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    addendum Amber

    The O’Bama legacy will be the most criminal, unconstitutional administration in American history.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.