Posted on 03/28/2017 11:23:24 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
On average, every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere imposes damages equal to about $40.
The social cost of carbon represents the damages of one ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the air. To estimate it, economists run models that forecast varying levels of carbon dioxide emissions. They can then model and compare two forecasts – one with slightly higher emissions than the other. The difference in total climate change damages represents the social cost of carbon.
Some model scenarios, based on admittedly extreme assumptions, produce negative SCC estimates – that is, they find that carbon pollution is good for the planet. But the vast majority of scenarios show that carbon pollution is bad for the planet, and that on average, every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere imposes damages equal to about $40 in today's dollars.
As climate change science and economics continue to evolve, our tools for estimating benefits from reducing carbon pollution will need to evolve and improve. In January the National Academies of Sciences published a report that lays out an extensive research agenda for improving the estimation and use of the social cost of carbon.
The federal government has used used benefit-cost analysis to calculate society's bottom line from regulations for decades. So far, the Trump administration appears to be focused solely on costs – an approach that maximizes the corporate bottom line, but leaves the public out of the equation.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Usually I like models; the ones with legs.
“On average, every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere imposes damages equal to about $40.”
Think about that. The science (and believe that there is none) behind that is Pelosi stupid.
First sentence. No way in hell can this be proved, but there exists a proof.
That proof is to the statement: “Math is not a friend of liberals.”
This is all models on top of models.
Notably temperature models with carbon dioxide as a variable (which have all been wrong so far),
Feeding weather/sea level/agriculture models dependent on temperature, for which there is zero data to validate the models,
Feeding economic models, again with zero data. Who can tell what the downstream cost of more “bad” weather actually is?
Two much of a good thing.
Wonder how many.......toenails?
Actually, most of the climate “research” is centered not on models but on pseudo scientific studies trying to employ dubious methodology and assumptions to infer ancient weather patterns and connect them to carbon dioxide concentrations.
The researchers then try to tie specious doom and gloom projections based on the ubious methodology and scientifically unsound assumptions.
This is the basis for Michael Mann's largely discredited “hockey stick” theory which has pretty much been expose as a fraudulent fabrication.
Read “Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science” by Valery N. Sofer to understand the dynamics of how it's done. The parallels with Lysenko's politicization of science to support his pseudo science theories of genetics and resulting destruction of Soviet agriculture and the current “Climate Change “ debate are striking.
There used to be something called cost/benefit ratio, which was to be applied to proposals to measure how effective the project was supposed to be. Sometimes the “benefit” was pretty ephemeral, if it existed at all, and often they used static projection models, which skewed the final determination. Either the cash value of the “benefit” was vastly inflated, or the collateral effects are not considered.
Removing an excess amount of carbon dioxide from the environment results in starvation of plant life. But attempts to significantly reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide are pretty much a fool’s errand, as the natural process of life cycles of most growing material in the biological zone of earth are in a constant state of flux regarding the concentration of carbon dioxide, and it is geared to the presence of water, sunlight, and ambient CO2.
I took off from my home this morning, having to drive 60 miles for an appointment- The temp leaving the house was 41 degrees- I got to my appointment, and it was 49 degrees- When i left the house, deer- bear- foxes- crows, eagles, birds, fish squirrels etc were all dancing and prancing gleefully- when i arrived at appointment- deer- bear- foxes- crows, eagles, birds, fish squirrels etc in the area were gasping for breath dying beside the road- in the woods etc all because of ‘climate change’- when i left- not an animal or insect was left alive- it was chaos everywhere- bodies everywhere- everything was on fire- trees were dying- vast bodies of water were dried up- it was awful
I got back home where it was now 43 degrees- and wouldn’t you know it- the ‘climate change’ from 42 degrees to 43 degrees- caused all the happy deer- bear- foxes- crows, eagles, birds, fish squirrels etc to die while i was gone-
We didn’t act soon enough folks- everything is gone now thanks to ‘climate change’
oh and just wait until this summer when the climate changes from 42 degrees to well over 80 degrees- good giolly we’re all doomed!
Oh and- the LIARS toutign ‘man-caused cliamte change’ claim that prosititution is ‘caused by cliamte change’
Really? At what temperature does a law abiding woman decide “Ya know what? It’s now do dang hot I guess the only thing left to do is to turn to prostitution and hope I don’t die from aids or some other devastating venereal disease, or get beat to death by a psychotic client, or get beat to death by my pimp for not performing well enough?
What temp would that have to be? 85 Degrees? 90? 95? What temp exactly causes law abiding women to cross that line?
Glad you brought up Lysenko. You can go to the Wikipedia page on Lysenko and do a text “find and replace” genetics with global warming and the parallels are striking. Nothing is lost in the meaning.
Climate change is 100% Lysenkoism. There is indeed nothing new under the sun. Which is what actually warms the earth, by the way.
As you stated, their "projections" amount to nothing but Marxist BS and propaganda.
CO2 is 0.04% of Earths atmosphere.
And what bank account does mother Earth own that they can deposit the money into?
Economists make two guesses. They then subtract one guess from the second guess to make a third guess about the cost of carbon dioxide.
Sounds like science to me!
(/s)
Zero.
In other words they have common up with a plan to get the government to spend billions more on useless research on science with no scientific basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.