On February 13, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a letter supporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draught issuance to more than triple the so-called social cost of carbon emissions. The letter was signed by nearly 400 experts, including economists and climate scientists.
The estimated economic harm caused by emitting one metric tonne of carbon dioxide is represented by the social cost of carbon, which is expressed in dollars.
The cost takes into account four components socioeconomics and emissions, climate, damages, and discounting outlined in detail in the EPA draught proposal, Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Integrating Recent Research Developments. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) and other unbiased researchers’ data are used in the EPA estimate.
‘True Cost’
According to Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist and director of climate research at UCS, the key estimate that is the cost is novel for the EPA. Based on the sad effects that are occurring, we have a far better knowledge of the true cost of climate change. Prominent economists claim that the prior rate was seriously out of date.
The price per tonne was previously $51/tonne. Its amount nearly triples to $190/tonne under the latest proposal, reflecting the state of the evidence.
It brings it to the fore for the American public, the genuine cost for every emission of a heat-trapping gas for the United States and the planet,” Ekwurzel said.
The EPA must periodically do an economic analysis of any regulation it has on the books because it has historically been the largest emitter of emissions from fossil fuels. As such, it is crucial that they continue to research their data. The 400’s letter ends with the following:
We applaud the EPA for making significant modifications to the SC-GHGs and anticipate their expeditious finalization and application by federal agencies and others.
These initiatives are essential for ensuring that our country’s climate policies and investments are suitably strong and responsive to the size and urgency of the activities needed to limit the worst effects of climate change.
We feel the EPA is moving in the right direction with this new draught plan to increase the rate, according to Ekwurzel, a scientist who has signed this letter and is one of many scientists and experts who understand the social cost of carbon.
This Higher Number Might Have an Effect on Legislative Activity.
When you have this one number, any regulation that deals with greenhouse gases, like attempting to uphold the Paris Agreement, the EPA can send data to Congress and the general public to say, “How much do we save from adverse public health outcomes, like major extreme damages from an extreme event, sea level rise, extreme heat, loss of life of outdoor workers, lost labor hours?” Ekwurzel said.
Yet, the EPA admits that the calculated amount of $190 per metric tonne could not be high enough even in the draught EPA plan. The report specifically notes:
Read More: Beginning of Oil Recovery from KXL Pipeline Spill by Company.!
The modeling used in this report reflects conservative methodological decisions, and as a result, the SC-GHG estimates produced are probably an underestimation of the marginal damages from GHG pollution. This is because many categories of damages are still not quantified and because other model limitations exist.
