Thats huge!
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
366 points (98.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5710 readers
291 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Definitely, and still way below the numbers that have been showing up in the academic literature over the past couple years.
It'll have to survive the next election. Republicans will of course only hammer the negative impacts on businesses.
Of course. Pretty much every positive action by the US government has this issue.
I thought 250 usd/ton was one of those numbers from literature?
Whats proposed nowadays?
Up to $525/ton
Ok. Still 200 is better than 50.
Considering Trump wants it at $5 I would consider the current progress fantastic.
Got a source, and also how you go about keeping yourself updated on that number
The full article is paywalled, but the abstract of this meta-analysis states "In the past 10 years, estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased from US$9 per tCO2 to US$40 per tCO2 for a high discount rate and from US$122 per tCO2 to US$525 per tCO2 for a low discount rate." Published May 15 of this year.
It would be nice if these numbers didn't yo-yo with each administration. Even if one is pro-low price, it must fuck up long term plans tremendously.
(I am pro-high cost of fossil fuels, but want process to increase at a steady and predictable rate. $1 million in steps every 6 months is very different from $1 million in one step at any point in time.)
You are right, but these numbers are intrinsically affected by value-judgements - about how to integrate impacts over time, across different sectors, across rich and poor countries/communities and over probability of such impacts (risk aversion). It's not so much the science changing, but the values - hence political shifts. It would help if experts could separate these factors more clearly. For example people mention "the discount rate", but there is not just one - there is a (low) pure time preference for the whole world and higher rates for individuals and companies with finite lifetimes, also higher in rapidly developing countries (this does make sense, given a non-linear welfare function).
The new number will be put into action right away: the E.P.A. plans this spring to release final regulations to curb carbon dioxide from cars, trucks and power plants.
The impact on power plants should not be underestimated. This is a win, and hopefully we'll be able to ween ourselves off fossil fuels and coal more quickly if it hurts these power companies bottom line.
Hopefully this will also move into the private airplane business, and cruise line industry.
Cars will take more time, because we have to cycle the old fossil fuel engines for newer cars that just aren't cost effective right now. Not to mention, some people will want to keep their gas powered car.
Honestly?
I'd totally go on a sail and solar powered cruise line. That'd be cool as fuck.
load more comments
(34 replies)
Does any one have a link to the estimation process?
view more: next ›