Roger that. Latest Executive branch calc is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf
Further WH info here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/01/refining-estimates-social-cost-carbon So give'em a piece of your mind. I don't have Barack's direct line. Greg Sent from the Rau's iPad > On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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, 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. -- 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.
