Статья

Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2

Kevin RennertResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USAFrank ErricksonSchool of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USABrian PrestResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USALisa RennelsEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USARichard G. NewellResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USAWilliam A. PizerResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USACora KingdonEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAJordan WingenrothResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USARoger CookeResources for the Future, Washington, DC, USABryan ParthumEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USADavid J. SmithEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USAKevin CromarMarron Institute of Urban Management, New York University, Brooklyn, NY, USADelavane DiazEPRI, Palo Alto, CA, USAFrances C. MooreDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA, USAUlrich K. MüllerDepartment of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USARichard J. PlevinIndependent researcher, Portland, OR, USAAdrian E. RafteryDepartments of Statistics and Sociology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAHana ŠevčíkováCenter for Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAHannah SheetsSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USAJames H. StockDepartment of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USATammy TanEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USAMark W. WatsonDepartment of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USATony E. WongSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USADavid AnthoffEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [email protected]

2022en

ABI

Аннотация

Abstract The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO 2 ) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO 2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit–cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO 2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO 2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO 2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO 2 . Our preferred mean SC-CO 2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO 2 ($44–$413 per tCO 2 : 5%–95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2%, a value 3.6 times higher than the US government’s current value of $51 per tCO 2 . Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO 2 estimation in the new open-source Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO 2 values, compared with estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate policies.

Перевод пока недоступен

Идентификаторы

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9

Цитирования и источники

Цитирований: 2Использованных источников: 0

Показатели — AkademScholar