The Right Price on Emissions

The Right Price on Emissions

An executive order from President Barack Obama requires that the Environmental Protection Agency analyze the costs and benefits of its regulations. But how exactly can it measure the economic benefits of the coming restrictions on greenhouse gases? For both policy and law (including the inevitable court challenges), it’s a crucial question.

This month, the administration provided a big part of the answer with a new report from its Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, which is intended to capture in dollar terms the damage from 1 ton of carbon emissions.

The central value is $36. (This is set within a range from $11 to $105, meant to acknowledge scientific and economic uncertainty.) So suppose that, next year, the EPA finalizes a rule meant to eliminate 20 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. If so, the monetary value of the reduction would be calculated at $720 million. And that number would loom large in the EPA’s decision about whether the benefits justify the costs — and in figuring out how stringent its regulation should be.

Not everyone thinks $36 is the right figure. Especially within the environmental community, many people think it’s far too low, and some technical experts agree. Many others think it’s far too high, and they, too, can find support from experts. The Office of Management and Budget has received thousands of public comments on the subject, touching on fundamental questions of policy, science and economics. To its great credit, the new report responds to those comments in detail.

One basic question is whether the social cost of carbon should take account of the global damage done by emissions from the U.S., or only the domestic damage — which would significantly lower the dollar amount. Some commenters argued strongly that U.S. regulators should consider only harms to Americans, not to Ethiopians or Russians or Chinese. And indeed, that’s the usual U.S. way of calculating benefits and costs.

But the working group argued forcefully that if all countries set policies only on the basis of domestic effects, their emissions reductions would end up being “economically inefficient,” because no country would take the slightest account of the harms that it imposed on others. If the U.S. adopts a global estimate, on the other hand, it “can signal its leadership” in the effort to obtain international cooperation on emissions reductions. What’s more, harmful effects on the rest of the world can ultimately damage the U.S. as well by creating problems for national security, international trade and public health.

 

Source: Bloomberg

Date: July 2015

Read the article


Tags assigned to this article:
costsenvironmentUnited States

Related Articles

Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions fall to record low

Greenhouse gas emissions in Europe have plunged to the lowest level ever recorded after the EU’s member states reported an

This Florida town wants to become the most sustainable community in America

When Florida real estate developer Syd Kitson began conceptualizing Babcock Ranch, a planned community located some 20 minutes from Florida’s

Hundreds of coal plants are still being planned worldwide, enough to cook the planet

Since 2000, countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam have been building coal-fired power plants at a torrid pace: The