this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
377 points (99.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5100 readers
466 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.

The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It would be nice if these numbers didn't yo-yo with each administration. Even if one is pro-low price, it must fuck up long term plans tremendously.

(I am pro-high cost of fossil fuels, but want process to increase at a steady and predictable rate. $1 million in steps every 6 months is very different from $1 million in one step at any point in time.)

[–] benjhm@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

You are right, but these numbers are intrinsically affected by value-judgements - about how to integrate impacts over time, across different sectors, across rich and poor countries/communities and over probability of such impacts (risk aversion). It's not so much the science changing, but the values - hence political shifts. It would help if experts could separate these factors more clearly. For example people mention "the discount rate", but there is not just one - there is a (low) pure time preference for the whole world and higher rates for individuals and companies with finite lifetimes, also higher in rapidly developing countries (this does make sense, given a non-linear welfare function).

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Definitely, and still way below the numbers that have been showing up in the academic literature over the past couple years.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It'll have to survive the next election. Republicans will of course only hammer the negative impacts on businesses.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 10 months ago

Of course. Pretty much every positive action by the US government has this issue.

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I thought 250 usd/ton was one of those numbers from literature?

Whats proposed nowadays?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ok. Still 200 is better than 50.

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Considering Trump wants it at $5 I would consider the current progress fantastic.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Got a source, and also how you go about keeping yourself updated on that number

[–] IlliteratiDomine@infosec.pub 7 points 10 months ago

The full article is paywalled, but the abstract of this meta-analysis states "In the past 10 years, estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased from US$9 per tCO2 to US$40 per tCO2 for a high discount rate and from US$122 per tCO2 to US$525 per tCO2 for a low discount rate." Published May 15 of this year.

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 25 points 10 months ago (38 children)

The new number will be put into action right away: the E.P.A. plans this spring to release final regulations to curb carbon dioxide from cars, trucks and power plants.

The impact on power plants should not be underestimated. This is a win, and hopefully we'll be able to ween ourselves off fossil fuels and coal more quickly if it hurts these power companies bottom line.

Hopefully this will also move into the private airplane business, and cruise line industry.

Cars will take more time, because we have to cycle the old fossil fuel engines for newer cars that just aren't cost effective right now. Not to mention, some people will want to keep their gas powered car.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Honestly?

I'd totally go on a sail and solar powered cruise line. That'd be cool as fuck.

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Does any one have a link to the estimation process?

load more comments
view more: next ›