Posted on 02/12/2020 7:32:17 AM PST by karpov
Many on the left love to talk about the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions, but what about the social benefits?
A new study by climate, economics, and statistical experts raises serious questions about the most popular social cost of carbon models and finds that carbon dioxide emissions have resulted in net positive benefits for society. This updated information should give policymakers pause as legislative sessions convene across the country.
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the long-term dollar cost for each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere. The SCC is being used to support policy decisions at the state and federal levels. State lawmakers have relied on the models to implement net-zero emissions policies and renewable power mandates — decisions with immediate, real costs to consumers and the economy.
Policymakers have typically relied on estimates from the federal government’s Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. The IWG generates its estimates primarily from three integrated assessment models. The impact of these models on public policy has been significant.
The new study, published in Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, uses updated data on the fertilization effect of increased CO2, information that has not been fully incorporated into the models used by IWG. New studies indicate that crop yields, once thought to see no benefit from increased CO2, do, in fact, benefit. Further, a review of satellite-based studies shows stronger plant growth benefits than were expected when the current models were constructed.
The study also analyzed new climate data from direct observations and compared that to the predictions from earlier models as a way to review and revise model assumptions that have not proven to be accurate.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Climate is always changed....from the beginning of time. The idea that we’re capable of changing it....is just a numbers game....and as usual....follow the money.
No way for liberals to make big money running anti-carbon scams if people can be made to understand this.
Who woulda thunk that plants would benefit from more CO2? :)
Do you know the actual percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2? Don't bother googling it. Its four one-hundreths of one percent (technically 0.0391%). The climate doesn't warm because of CO2. CO2 increases due to warming (mostly due to ocean water evaporation increases due to warming). Remember Al Gore's hockey stick (the first one, not the altered one). It showed the temperature rising before the increases in CO2, but since the curves looked the same, nobody questioned the assertion that the CO2 caused temperatures to rise.
Our modern way of life, our greatly increased longevity, our health, our freedom from disease, our life of ease...everything we enjoy can be traced to man learning how to harness heat generated from burning carbon.
People cannot imagine at all what it is like to live in a pre-industrial world that doesn’t use carbon-based energy.
The whole notion that these benefits aren’t counted on the positive side of the “carbon ledger” is preposterous. These benefits vastly outweigh (by many orders of magnitude) any problems caused by emitting some CO2 into the air.
The very premise is flawed. CO2 in our atmosphere is only about 400 parts per MILLION and to believe that parts per million changes in a single trace gas is the primary if not sole driver of the planet’s climate and that variations in solar output, the wobble of the earths axis relative to the sun, the oceans and natural phenomenon like volcanos have negligible if not no impact is ridiculous.
CO2 FOLLOWS temperature rise, it does not cause it.
If everyone who believes CO2 is a dangerous pollutant would just stop exhaling it, we could solve this problem overnight.
During the Jurassic era the CO2 levels were 400 times higher than they are today. There were lush jungles that could sustain 100 ton dinosaurs even in Antarctica. The Earth was never more alive than it was back then.
CO2 levels today are about 0.04% (400 parts per million), which is just enough for plants to survive. If it drops to 150 PPM or lower plants will starve and die worldwide. This had actually happened during the Snowball Earth era, which almost wiped out all life on the planet.
More CO2 is a good thing.
It is ridiculous that this pres release of the study actually has to state that “previous studies disputed the role of increased CO2 in increasing food suplies” - EVERY plant worldwide is now growing 12% to 27% faster taller, higher, and more productively AND with better drought resistance than every before due to man’s recent release of CO2 from underground.
Fossil fuels are feeding 6 billion peoples VERY DAY, and the one ones starving today are those with limited access to fuel and scarce distribution of food and clean water DUE TO THEIR Governments’ FAILURES and corruption.
Carbon Dioxide is not carbon.
Carbon enters into chemical combination with many other elements, forming compounds that have no resemblance to the original elements.
Our climate is controlled by the sun.
Human politicians are going to change the functions of the sun? How full of $#!+ are our politicians? How stupid are we supposed to be?
Years ago, I challenged a left-leaning friend with a list of assumptions that would have to confirmed for me to buy into the arguments of global warming alarmists.
One of them was “assuming it’s real, is it a problem or is it a benefit?” Another was “assuming it’s a problem, do the available solutions, if any, make things better, or worse?”
No answers forthcoming from advocates generally, other than “white supremacist” and “Orange Man Bad” and “OK, Boomer”. Very scientific of these science-worshipers.
bkmk
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.