Is this the sort of conversation that goes on inside an insane asylum? These people have absolutely no idea what they are doing. How much did the 310 ppm Dust Bowl cost? How much did the 1864 Brisbane flood cost?
How Much Does Global Warming Cost?
A new report suggests that the social cost of carbon — the economic damage done by one ton of carbon dioxide emissions — could be drastically higher than government agencies have estimated.
By Dan WatsonMost people understand that global warming is happening, but it is hard to get a firmer sense of exactly what effects it is going to have on the future of the world. Governments have started to approach climate change as a situation to evaluate using cost-benefit analysis: How much should we spend to fix the problem? How much will it cost us if we don’t?
As Judith Schwartz detailed in February (“The Social Cost of Carbon”), the U.S. government began regulating carbon dioxide emissions via the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The U.S. calculated the social cost of carbon — the economic damage done by 1 ton of carbon dioxide emissions — through an Interagency Working Group made up of many different cabinet departments and agencies. They estimated the economic damage per ton of CO2 to be just $21, or only about 21 cents per gallon of gasoline.
That price was quite similar to the AUS$23 per metric ton Australia is assessing its 500 top carbon emitters beginning July 1, 2012, according to an announcement Prime Minister Julia Gillard made earlier this month. (That AUS$23 is roughly US$24.50 at current exchange rates.)
Hey I have a question I am hoping someone can answer. I had read this post on 1998 no longer being the hottest year (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/) and then clicked on the link to NASA’s data. I noticed that now all the numbers are different, but what’s really strange is the anomalies for 1998, 2006, 1999, 2001, and 1990 all got larger, but the anomalies for 1934, 1921, and 1931 all shrank. What is this about? I sorted the data in an excel spreadsheet and they have the temps ranked 1) 1998, 2) 2006, 3) 1934. Are they now calculating with respect to a different baseline period? But why are all recent years getting boosted and the years in the 20s and 30s smaller? This sounds fishy and I’m hoping someone can explain why 1998 is now the hottest year on record and why 2006 has displaced 1934.
Hey Dave! This may help…
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html
Social Cost? There is no F***ing “Social Cost”. Costs are inanimate. This is more of the sick, demented fixation the left has on all things communal and emotional. Constant drama. Constantly seeking to redefine reality with ethereal metaphor and witless gibberish. It makes me want to vomit.
Want a good example? Listen to Charles Manson for about 2 minutes and you’ll get an earful. Mindless Obfuscation.
How about some Real Costs? The cost of crushing taxation and energy costs on every last thing you buy? The cost of Eco litigation that ended up closing a factory which employed hundreds or thousands?
It seems just as likely that a bit of warming will actually improve conditions and increase economic benefits. If so will govts give me a rebate everytime I fill up with petrol? No, I thought not.
Did anyone notice the picture of Kilimanjaro next to the article? The author states
“Melting snows at Kilimanjaro are visceral, but it is trickier to determine carbon pollution’s economic costs to society.”
Visceral?
vis·cer·al: Relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect:
So the point of the article on CO2 pollution is about feelings rather than facts??
If that’s true than the author IS pulling facts out of his a$$.
The tangible “social” benefits of a ton of coal or a gallon of gasoline are far greater the speculated upon “social costs”.
If the “social cost” of 1 ton of coal is $21 and then the government wants to tack on a $21 tax the money from which won’t go to “mitigate” carbon emissions but just go into the govt’s general fund to be pissed away as per usual we have only doubled the so-called “social cost”. The financial burden will only be placed on the consumer, which is the general public.