Posted on 01/12/2015 2:45:59 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions – often referred to as the "social cost" of carbon – could actually be six times higher than the value that the United States now uses to guide current energy regulations, and possibly future mitigation policies, Stanford scientists say.
A recent U.S. government study concluded, based on the results of three widely used economic impact models, that an additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015 would cause $37 worth of economic damages. These damages are expected to take various forms, including decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health and lower worker productivity, all related to climate change.
But according to a new study, published online this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, the actual cost could be much higher. "We estimate that the social cost of carbon is not $37 per ton, as previously estimated, but $220 per ton," said study coauthor Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth Sciences.
Based on the findings, countries may want to increase their efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, said study co-author Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford's School of Engineering. "If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."
For their study, Moore and Diaz modified a well-known computer model for calculating the economic impacts of climate change, known as an integrated assessment model, or IAM. Their alternative formulation incorporated recent empirical findings suggesting that climate change could substantially slow economic growth rates, particularly in poor countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.stanford.edu ...
This guy is REALLY trying for a new grant!
Horse hockey
What about location? Doing CO2 in the Rat cities is definitely not beneficial.
What does Prof. Gruber say?
What pikers. If they’re just going to tweak the models to come up with a new made-up number to replace the old made-up number, why not go for broke? My model says it’s ten times what theirs does — $2200 per ton. So there! Prove me wrong.
“including decreased agricultural yields, “
Bull Shiite! It would increase yields!
More likely he is trying for a job.
He is a PhD candidate. Once he has his doctorate he will be just another PhD out there looking for a job in an over loaded field.
However if he has name recognition he has a better chance.
How much money should be spent on a hoax?
In the next few years, it will be global cooling, and the same nutcases that support global warming will be demanding public funds for research.
They will just invert the hockey stick and claim it is “settled science”.
I am all for spending not a dime on this nonsense.
>> How much money should be spent on a hoax? <<
Max the credit card as long as the DNC gets its cut.
Their model is shockingly bad, even if one believes in man-made global warming. They assume stupidity and no benefits - that despite climate change farmers will accept lower yields and will not change anything they do, and that there are no economic benefits as the climate warms.
Uh huh.
And Stanford produced Paul Ehrlich and his Population Bomb hysteria which has been shown by history to be total NONSENSE.
Stanford ain’t the place people think it is.
Better shut down those ethanol plants. I believe a small-to-medium one makes around 200,000 tons of CO2 per year.
That's the great thing about software...one can write code to generate any outcome that they might desire...I doubt that any of their peers will be taking a rigorous approach to evaluating the software that churned out these, findings
Don’t shut all of them down—there’s always a market for liquor—just re-tool for different crops.
Start with the conclusion you desire, then develop a theory that supports it.
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
The "damage" is just as likely to be a benefit.
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.