Maybe we can discuss this after we establish (1) the value of species soon to become extinct, and
(2) the value of a few millennia of rising sea levels. While we are at it, we might discuss the ethics of maximizing net-present-value when we reap the benefits while others pay the costs. (I'm all for maximizing NPV when the proceeds accrue to me and the costs are borne by you, but I feel ethically bound to get your permission first. When somebody figures out a way to get permission from future generations, please do let me know.) _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > From below: "The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at > $37 per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes."" > > Anyone care to add their 2 cents? A rather crucial measure that will > determine the net value of any action taken on CO2. > Greg > > CLIMATE: White House calls for comments on estimated social cost of > carbon > Jason Plautz, E&E reporter > Published: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 > The Obama administration opened the comment period yesterday on its > controversial estimate of the cost of carbon emissions after industry > groups asked for a full rulemaking process on the figure. > Groups will have until Jan. 27, 2014, to submit comments on revisions to > the social cost of carbon estimate, which seeks to quantify the cost to > society of each ton of carbon emissions in property damage, health care > costs, lost agricultural output and other expenses. > Republicans and industry representatives had raised concerns that a May > 2013 revision to the SCC -- which calculated the cost to be $38 per metric > ton of CO2 by 2015 compared with the 2010 estimate of $23.8 per metric ton > -- would be used by the administration to determine the cost-effectiveness > of a host of new regulations. They asked for a full comment period and > rulemaking process to evaluate the estimate, despite the fact that it is > not in fact a rule. > Howard Shelanski, administrator of the Office of Information and > Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, > announced the comment period earlier this month after previously saying > there would not need to be one under the law (*E&ENews PM > <http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1059989934>*, Nov. 4). > Shelanski defended the process used by the administration's interagency > working group, saying the May estimates "reflect values that are similar to > those used by other governments, international institutions and major > corporations." > The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 per > metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes." > Environmentalists had commended the White House for not opening a full > rulemaking process, even while questioning whether the administration had > chosen values that were too low to fully reflect the risk from rising > greenhouse gas emissions. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
