Sentences with phrase «scc estimates»

The uncertainty, and potential for politically motivated bias, in all such SCC estimates is astronomical, no matter who does them.

I haven't a clue how the uncertainties in the SCC estimates could be calculated, but here are a couple of thoughts:

And these SCC estimates are from a 2011 paper by Richard Tol (albeit updated to 2015 dollars).

They are basically calling for abandoning the existing IAMs and SCC estimates and starting from scratch, with «integrated» modules for each modeling step.

And isn't it that reality that makes a nonsense of the US government's SCC estimates (the topic of David Wojick's article)-- whatever those «who know much more» than you may say?

Existing estimates are based not on testable (let alone tested) economic models of how changes in climate generate economic costs, but on conjecture, guesswork, and sometimes simply by asking «experts» — the people who construct SCC estimates — what they think the damages from climate change might be.»

We can certainly change how the SCC estimates are made or used in Federal decision making, including banning their use.

As detailed in this study, the current use of SCC estimates is particularly problematic.

These statistics signify the strong uncertainty associated with the SCC estimates at lower discount rates and, therefore, their lack of reliability.

Since the other two distributions (Aldrin et al. and Lewis) are skewed even further to the left than the Otto distribution, using either of them would likely result in even lower SCC estimates.

Table 14 illustrates that changing the ECS distribution in conjunction with changing the end year to 2150 results in even lower SCC estimates.

[2] The damage functions are the very core of the models, and the models can not provide meaningful SCC estimates without theoretically and empirically sound damage functions.

Using this more current distribution dramatically alters the SCC estimates.

Although we believe that even an end year of 2150 is still too far in the future to base meaningful policy, we compared such estimates to the baseline SCC estimates.

[9] The introduction of a 7 percent discount rate markedly lowers the DICE model's SCC estimates.

From a short - term perspective, one might argue with some persuasiveness that the low national carbon price is a way for the economy to ease into this nation - wide pricing regime and that the annual increases to 2022 and beyond are on track to converge with SCC estimates (presumably the central value, not the 95th percentile).

Nonetheless, the EPA chose to justify its regulation based on an SCC it estimated to be $ 37 per ton.

In particular, the average SCC estimate is markedly lower, and sometimes even negative, using these newer ECS distributions.

Each SCC estimate is the average of numerous iterations (10,000 in the EPA's assessment, which we reproduce here) of the model using different potential values for climate sensitivity (how much warming a doubling of CO2 will generate).

For the purposes of this effort to develop a system that could put a price on carbon in the New York State wholesale electric market I agree that the IWG SCC estimate minus the RGGI cost is the appropriate parameter to use.

So you can be pretty sure the interagency working group will be increasing its SCC estimate regularly.

Not exact matches

The current estimate for the SCC in 2020 is $ 42 per metric ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

The new report focuses on a controversial measure called the social cost of carbon (SCC), an estimate in dollars of the economic consequences of CO2 emissions.

In a 2013 blog post, Chris Hope of Cambridge University and a leading climate - economics modeler showed how lower estimates of climate sensitivity affected the SCC.

New, relevant, readily available, and influential science on a topic considered to be a «key factor» in the determination of the SCC — the distribution of the estimated value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)-- was not included in the 2013 SCC update used in the final rulemaking.

«The federal SCC [social costs of carbon] estimates do not adequately consider the benefits 27 of fossil fuels andCO2 emission.»

Likewise, when climate sensitivity is low, emissions drive less temperature change and cause less damage, leading to lower estimates of the SCC.

The direct benefits were estimated using various SCC values.

Called the social cost of carbon (SCC), it is an estimate of the economic value of the extra (or marginal) impact caused by the emission of one more tonne of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) at any point in time; it can, as well, be interpreted as the marginal benefit of reducing carbon emissions by one tonne.

An updated estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution (ECS)-- a measure of CO2's temperature impact — reduces the 2020 estimate of SCC by more than 40 percent; and

Our results clearly illustrate that the DICE model used by the EPA to estimate the SCC is extremely sensitive to the assumptions that we examined.

The model computes total utility across the entire population as its estimate of the SCC.

Thus, we do not plan to analyze the PAGE model and believe that the conditions imposed on its use should exclude it from any official process to estimate the SCC.

Not surprisingly, estimates of the SCC reported in the peer - reviewed economics literature range from as little as $ 10 per ton of CO2 to over $ 400.

'' The federal SCC [social costs of carbon] estimates do not adequately consider the benefits of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.»

Just like the other IAMs used by the EPA, the FUND model's estimates of the SCC are based on Monte Carlo simulations.

We can amalgamate the changes in assumptions made in the previous two sections to estimate the SCC by assuming a more current ECS distribution in accordance with the Otto distribution and changing the end year to 2150.

A low SCC can make all but the lowest - cost clean - energy policies pencil out as expensive; higher estimates justify more rapid and aggressive measures, since moving too slowly to reduce emissions shows up as a mistake whose costs accumulate at a frightening pace.

The regulatory use of the SCC is disturbing because the method for determining the value of the SCC, despite the seemingly sophisticated process for estimating it, is almost completely arbitrary.

[13] Of course, although averages across standard deviations are not standard deviations themselves, they enable us to quantify the uncertainty associated with the five probability distributions used to estimate the SCC.

The IAMs used by the IWG to estimate the SCC are grounded on the specification of such an ECS distribution.

As mentioned, of the three statistical models the EPA uses to estimate the SCC, only the FUND model allows the SCC to be negative.

Altering the discount rate to 7 percent as recommended by the OMB and employing more recent peer - reviewed ECS distributions delivers drastically lower estimates of the SCC.

Since moderate and defensible changes in assumptions lead to such large changes in the resulting estimates of the SCC, the entire process is susceptible to political gaming.

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) examined two of these models and found that using assumptions from more current climate literature significantly reduces the estimated SCC.

Specifically, the EPA's estimates of the SCC are based on summing damages through the year 2300.

A further problem in estimating the SCC is the bias toward high «discount rates» that telescope future impacts down to seemingly manageable proportions.

Thus, in addition to the above analysis, we also estimate the probability that the SCC can be negative and discuss the resulting implications.

[13] Although assumptions regarding lower discount rates suggest higher estimates of the SCC than do higher discount rates, the associated standard deviations are, on average, also notably higher.

Using the 7 percent discount rate as recommended by the OMB results in an estimated SCC averaging to essentially zero dollars.