Excited to announce a new @pnas.org publication on the Social Cost of Carbon. We integrate evidence from the literature and expert survey to provide an SCC distribution inclusive of both parametric and structural uncertainties. Our mean 2020 value is $283 per ton CO2 www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/... - ThreadSky

climatefran.bsky.social • 73 days ago

Excited to announce a new @pnas.org publication on the Social Cost of Carbon. We integrate evidence from the literature and expert survey to provide an SCC distribution inclusive of both parametric and structural uncertainties. Our mean 2020 value is $283 per ton CO2
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2410733121

Comments

nathanratledge.bsky.social•73 days ago

Nice work!

loganemitchell.bsky.social•73 days ago

Check it out @noahqkaufman.bsky.social ☝️

thestoic7.bsky.social•71 days ago

paulkelleher.net•73 days ago

Congrats to the team! Can’t wait to dig in.

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

Thanks @paulkelleher.net - very interested in any thoughts as you read through

paulkelleher.net•73 days ago

I know a book this person should read.

economista.bsky.social•72 days ago

📌

ketanjoshi.co•73 days ago

CC @benjullien.bsky.social

zoeconomy.bsky.social•73 days ago

📌

jmelville.science•73 days ago

📌

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

We collect 1823 SCC distributions from 147 papers published 2000-2020, along with >30 variables describing the model and parameters that produce them. Published 2020 SCC estimates are heavily right-skewed, with a mean ($132 per ton CO2) several times larger than the median ($39)

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

Our rich set of covariates allows us to illustrate how the SCC distribution shifts under different model structures and parameter values. Note important roles for persistent or growth-rate damages, Earth system modeling, and the discount rate.

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

We also analyze SCC variation in a multi-variate setting, looking at relative changes in the SCC as a function of model structure. This summarizes information from the large body of work adding richness to earlier SCC models in the Earth system, uncertainties, impacts and representation of utility

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

The published SCC distribution is interesting but does not have a clear statistical interpretation. We therefore supplement the analysis with a survey of SCC authors, soliciting their perception of biases in published SCC values and quality of different model structures

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

The vast majority of respondents believe published SCC values to be downward biased. The average "best-guess" SCC ($142 per ton CO2) is more than twice their literature estimate ($60 per ton). Experts substantially underestimate published SCC, at least compared to our findings.

kellyhereid.bsky.social•73 days ago

Thought this was particularly striking - clearly the median of the published literature is occupying more mental space in the research community than the huge right tail.

climatefran.bsky.social•73 days ago

Experts attribute the perceived downward bias in published SCCs to a range of factors. Discounting parameters, underestimated damages, under-representation of growth rate damages, and limited substitutability of climate impacts with consumption are notable.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply