Here are some numbers:
The carbon intensity numbers and conversions come from this useful EPA page. Abbreviations: MJ = megajoule = 0.28 kilowatt-hours (kWh) = 239 food calories; t = tonne = metric ton = 1,000 kg. 12,000 kWh is about what the average household uses in electricity every year.
Right now the US has emitted 5.30 gigatons of CO2 in the last 12 months, which has a social cost of $191 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. That's higher than I would have guessed, but doesn't seem absurdly high.
11 comments:
so gas would only be 10% more expensive?
does that include your co2 assumed damage?
so if the US enacted an additional 10% tax on FF thus carrying their full cost on the environment, the green lobby would advocate for no more non-FF subsidies?
that's all it would take to get them to stop blocking economic development, etc? might be worth it.
has the Sierra club et al signed on?
does that include your co2 assumed damage?
It simply includes the EPA's social cost of $36/t CO2.
so if the US enacted an additional 10% tax on FF thus carrying their full cost on the environment, the green lobby would advocate for no more non-FF subsidies?
Beats me -- I don't speak for the "green lobby." Nor do I see them "blocking" any economic development.
BTW, the cost here isn't a simple "10%" -- it is for gasoline and oil, but much, much higher for coal. It would roughly double the price of coal -- or more.
Beats me -- I don't speak for the "green lobby." Nor do I see them "blocking" any economic development.
BTW, the cost here isn't a simple "10%" -- it is for gasoline and oil, but much, much higher for coal. It would roughly double the price of coal -- or more.
you don't think blocking keystone is blocking economic development?
you might be onto something. see if you can get your green CAGW friends to propose a compromise. In return for accepting a 10% tax on gas (that will be spent on obamacare) we will stop trying to block oil development (fracking, drilling, pipelines etc).
if we get agreement on oil we can then address coal.
Blocking Keystone would be blocking *development* -- whether it's *economic* development is a different question.
All that oil would benefit some, and harm others. Some think the harm is greater than the benefit, in which case blocking it brings greater economic development than building it.
"All that oil would benefit some, and harm others. Some think the harm is greater than the benefit, in which case blocking it brings greater economic development than building it."
You just made the case in your post that the total harm expressed in economic terms is less than 10% of the current price. Thus if users still want to use the product with a 10% tax then the benefit is obviously larger than the cost.
It's not rocket science David.
Your scheme assumes there is a way to give the money collected to those harmed, who are worldwide and in a spectrum of circumstances. There is not, and it's difficult to imagine how there ever could be.
On the other hand, it's much easier to estimate harm, since it is the same for any given amount of CO2, regardless of where it comes from.
It's much easier to estimate the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, than of compensating those harmed.
"Your scheme assumes there is a way to give the money collected to those harmed, who are worldwide and in a spectrum of circumstances. There is not, and it's difficult to imagine how there ever could be."
That is true for any human activity. Thus if we can't perfectly compensate those harmed all human activity should be banned?
Thus if we can't perfectly compensate those harmed all human activity should be banned?
No, just activities that are extraordinarily harmful.
Surely the citizens of the USA are already paying that social cost: loss of productivity to sickness, increased medical costs, loss of amenities etc.
Here's a report about the indirect costs of burning coal http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf
Post a Comment