Posted on 02/08/2023 3:35:14 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The most powerful climate policy tool available to the federal government is a single number. It's called the social cost of carbon, and it represents the cost to humanity of emitting greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.
The social cost of carbon adds up all the damage from carbon emissions – the lost crops, flooded homes and lost wages when people can't safely work outside, plus the cost of climate-related deaths. The answer is expressed in dollars.
The current social cost of carbon is $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
Most climate experts agree that number is too low. That's a problem because it can make it seem like the costs of climate solutions – such as expanding wind energy – outweigh the benefits, when in fact many of the benefits to humanity are simply being underestimated.
The Environmental Protection Agency agrees that $51 is too low, and proposes more than tripling it to $190.
A major reason the EPA's new social cost of carbon is higher is because this is the first time the federal government has added to its calculations the cost of climate-related deaths outside America, including in developing and low-lying countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
But the EPA didn't assign the same dollar value to every life. Instead, a life lost in a lower-income country due to climate change is worth less than a life lost in a higher-income country.
The upshot is that the value of a climate-related death in the United States is equal to about 9 deaths in India, or 5 deaths in Ukraine or 55 deaths in Somalia. It also suggests that the life of a person in Qatar is worth almost twice as much as the life of an American.
(Excerpt) Read more at wshu.org ...
NPR Becky needs to get herself a real job.
It’s too bad the envirowhackos believe money is the answer to pollution. The bass turds don’t mind polluters pollutin’, they just want them to pay to do it. That way the enviroMENTALISTS will have jobs where you don’t have to work. All you have to do is whine and flap your jaws until you drop.
Article:
“climate experts”
They used the incorrect word.
Replace it with “witch doctors” and the article reads a lot better.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Gates owns FOUR private jets at a combined cost of $194 million dollars
No. But interesting tactic, virtue signaling via a non existent problem/solution in an attempt to get more people on board with doing something.
No.
The social cost of carbon is negative. There is 15 percent more vegetation cover now than when CO2 was only 280 ppm. If there was a cost to carbon use, people wouldn’t use it. CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial.
According to prof Happer, this number is negative!
CO2 is wholly beneficial, life giving gas, and the more, the merrier!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCCE-sw_Sc
The Environmental Protection Agency agrees that $51 is too low, and proposes more than tripling it to $190.
I figure that's a range of $0.41 to $1.54 per gallon of pure octane, so a similar price per gallon of regular gasoline.
You are the carbon they want to eliminate
The whole thing is scam, a power grab. Don't play their game. Don't legitimize any of it by giving it any consideration or insinuate it is viable in any way.
Checking the current coal prices, the cheep lignite is about $20 a ton.
Burning a ton of coal, one may generate about 3 tons of Co2.
So now, burning a ton of coal cost instead of $20, about $170 and if EPA gets its way, about $600.
That makes solar a real bargain!
Except that there are tons of coal burned in China in these solar cells. But does not count according to EPA!
Stop. Don’t play their game. Don’t run the numbers. The whole thing is a hoax.
Translation: A global VAT tax is coming and there isn’t a dang thing you can do about it as WE control the message.
Yes, the whole think is a hoax.
I am just trying to illustrate how they are trying to put coal and oil out of business.
Just putting outrageous “emission costs” on cheap coal, they multiply the costs and make coal supper expensive!
from $20 for ton of coal, suddenly they get $600, 30x price increase on the same!
That will put a lot of coalminers out of business and suddenly make the outrageous costs of “renewables” more palatable!
The rich used to be the producers. Not so much, now.
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.