Is the social cost of carbon too low?

The government revised the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) upwards to $37/metric ton.  Reports say the SCC is too low.  The concept doesn’t consider benefits from so-called carbon.  It is  just a tax wrapped up in nice sounding terminology.TheCost of Carbon Project, a joint project of the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Institute for Policy Integrity, says the public pays more than $37/tonne for the damages done by carbon:  disease, flooding, wildfires heat and all the associated evils from climate change.  The site links to scholarly appearing papers (probably peer reviewed) covering all aspects of the damage done by carbon.  It even has the obligatory picture of stacks with billowing (white) plumes.  The picture is darkened so the water droplets billowing from the stacks look more sinister.  The site, and very likely, the government doesn’t consider any benefits.

 The economy is pretty much carbon-based.   The US GDP is about $17.1 trillion. Try cutting off the “carbon polluting” part and not much of the economy is left. In 2010 the US CO2 emissions were 5,433,057,000 tonnes.  If you make the case that the economy is a benefit of ~$3150/tonne CO2.  That’s a made-up number same as the Social Cost of Carbon, you can’t separate the “costs” from the overall benefits.

The SCC is nothing more than trying to sugarcoat the carbon tax, but you can certainly come up with pretty web sites, support research papers and make lots of propaganda to support the need for that tax.

 http://junkscience.com/2014/03/16/is-the-social-cost-of-carbon-too-low/