Then there is the social benefit of CO2 emissions, just put at $2400/tonne by our friends over at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/01/22/document_pm_03.pdf If that is true then the value of a kWh generated from coal is $2.40/kWh. At a typical retail cost of $0.06/kWh for coal electricity and if we switched to renewables at say $0.12/kWh, then we'd reduce our net $ benefit from electricity by only 2.6%. Sounds like a bargain to me. Greg
>________________________________ > From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >To: From: Ken Caldeira To: RAU greg Cc: geoengineering ><[email protected]>; Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>; >Greg Rau <[email protected]>; Geoengineering <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:05 PM >Subject: Fwd: [geo] Up in air: $impact/tonne CO2 emitted > > > >Ken, Greg, Geo: > > Apologies for delay in response caused by visiting family, but I hope we >can keep Greg's “ethics” dialog open a bit longer. > > > I am pretty sure that Prof. Caldeira’s remarks below are intended to say we >should not rely on net present value computations to justify proceeding with >any part of geoengineering - as that approach can leave out so much - and can >lead to a justification for inaction. > > > But I am also pretty sure that he has some different philosophical >approaches to justify some geoengineering activities. This is to ask (not >just Ken) what those are. > > > Polluter pays? > > > Is there a way to modify the White House SCC number - which is endorsed by >the Administration's OMB - to include any of the values Ken finds missing? > > >Ron > > >> >>________________________________ >> >>From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> >>To: "RAU greg" <[email protected]> >>Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:10:09 PM >>Subject: Re: [geo] Up in air: $impact/tonne CO2 emitted >> >> >> >> >>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 reporterPublished: 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. > > > -- 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.
