Global Temperatures Global Troposphere Temperatures click here For full size []]
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Economics
16Articles

Dark Green Money - the Big Green Funding Machine

Major private foundations use their wealth and power to influence social movements and governments to fund green programs and provide grants to environmental organizations. Foundation and government funding affects climate policy and promotes the thesis that Canada should undertake very costly measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Two Canadian government agencies together spend $1.14 billion dollars per year on climate programs. United States foundations are spending more than U.S. $100 million per year to influence government climate policy and block Canadian resource development.



The Economics of the IPCC’s Special Report on Limiting Temperatures to 1.5 °C

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a special report (SR15) on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels on October 8, 2018. The report says the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions in 2030 to meet the 1.5 °C target is about 880 US$/tCO2. Using a climate sensitivity based on observations including effects of natural climate change, urban warming and the best available economic model, the mitigation proposal will prevent a benefit of 8 $/tCO2, for a total loss of 888 $/tCO2 mitigated.



Calculating the “Social Cost” of CO2 Emissions Using FUND

The social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (SCCO2) is defined as the social worldwide costs (net of benefits) of emitting one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere. The estimated SCCO2 is used for doing cost-benefit calculations for proposed government regulations. Integrated assessment models are used to estimate the SCCO2 considering demographic and economic variables in addition to the physical climate system. The temperature responses in IAM approximately match complex climate models. One of the IAMs, FUND, is freely available. This article presents plots and tables that give some idea of what FUND does. Using a 3% discount rate FUND calculates net damages of US$8.3/tCO2 if the climate sensitivity is 3.5 °C, and US$4.4/tCO2 of net benefits if the climate sensitivity is 1.0 °C for emissions in 2010, in constant US$2016.



Examining the Social Cost and Benefit of Carbon Dioxide; Dr. Michaels

Climate scientist Patrick Michaels provided testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology on February 28, 2017 about the Social Cost and Benefit of Carbon Dioxide (SCC). His testimony shows that the US Interagency Working Group (IWG) used too high and outdated estimates of climate sensitivity despite at least 16 new studies that show much lower values. Using more current values from empirical studies, the SCC in the DICE model falls by 30-50% and in the FUND model it falls by over 80%. The climate models over-warm the bulk atmosphere by a factor of 2.5. Two of the models used by the IWG do not contain the any significant benefits of CO2 fertilization or benefits of warming. The SCC would likely be negative if the models used parameters from the current scientific literature.



Empirically Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide

The authors applied the 2015 Lewis and Curry equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) distribution to the widely-used DICE and FUND Integrated Assessment Models. Previously the developers of these models (and others) have relied on model-simulated distribution of ECS values. using the empirical ECS distribution, the estimated SCC drops substantially in both the DICE and FUND models, and in the latter there is a large probability it is no longer even positive. The FUND model calculates that emissions in 2010 using a 5% discount rate have a SCC of -$0.65/tCO2, that is, emissions are beneficial. The ECS used however, is too high because it fails to account for urban contamination of the surface temperature record nor natural long-term climate change.




web design & development by: