According to costco.com, the right price is $20.21 + s/h
Posted on 04/05/2010 6:35:19 PM PDT by EBH
Carbon prices will be applied to car exhaust for the first time under the Obama administration's new tailpipe rule, launched yesterday. But while environmentalists were celebrating, some economists were quietly concerned that U.S. EPA's carbon calculation is too low.
The agency incorporated a preliminary price of $21 for every ton of carbon dioxide expelled from vehicles to help reach its new standard of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. That amounts to about 20 cents per gallon or, as two economists claim, a level that's "far too small a price incentive to prompt substantive mitigation measures."
"If widely adopted, this low estimate of the [social cost of carbon] could result in ineffectual regulations that would barely reduce U.S. emissions, if at all," Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton of the Stockholm Environment Institute say in a new white paper.
The "social cost of carbon" is not a direct tax on gasoline. It is, rather, a calculation that applies a price to each ton of CO2 that's released into the atmosphere, now and decades in the future, based on its potential damage to humans. More damage could occur from rising seas, for example, but less might happen if fewer people die from cold winters. A slew of factors could be plugged in to come up with different prices.
Hazy, but important concept It's a hazy mathematical concept, and government officials have been working to pin down the right price. That's important, because the price will influence a menu of future policies ranging from energy efficiency to engine efficiency.
"The social cost of carbon may be the most important number you've never heard of," the white paper says.
It is an analysis that weighs the costs of addressing carbon damages against the benefits. The paper provides this analogy: If each ton of emissions would incur $5 in damages, then people would be willing to pay less than that to avoid the impact. It's similar to sinking $4 into a parking meter to avoid a $5 ticket.
But what if the parking ticket costs less than the meter? People will accept the damage. That's what the authors believe is happening with carbon.
"The policy choices the government makes would be very different if it estimates climate damages not at $5 but at, say, $500 per ton of carbon (in the same way that a $500 parking fine would make you pay much more attention to putting money in the meter)," the paper says.
Therefore, it might be a good idea to scrap the social cost of carbon methodology and replace it with a different calculation that assumes the worst will happen from climate change, the authors suggest. They assert that the government's analysis largely omits the potential for catastrophic damage.
"The urgent priority is to protect ourselves against those worst cases, not to fine-tune expenditures to the most likely level of damages," the paper says. "The risk of spending 'too much' on clean energy alternatives pales in comparison with the risk of spending too little and irreversibly destabilizing the earth's climate."
Estimates range from $5 to $65 a ton Viewpoints vary widely about the social cost of carbon. There's a government working group with experts from across agencies tackling the issue. It has established wide-ranging prices for carbon because of the uncertainty. Costs per ton range from $5 to $65, but agencies are using $21, which was established as a middle range in a report last month by the working group.
"The government report is, in my view, very well done," Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, said in an e-mail. "Some of the best economists in the White House, CEA, Treasury, EPA, [Office of Management and Budget], and elsewhere in the Administration worked on it, drawing broadly upon the best available methodologies and literature."
It very well may come to that. Let’s try a few more non-lethal things first.
I might just open a used carbon store for people who can’t afford new carbon.
Look for me soon coming to eBay.
Interestingly, the people they’ll drive to rebellion have all the guns.
No objection from me. Its not going to be just for carbon though. Its going to be for stealing elections and trashing the Constitution.
Somehow the “one flew over the Coo Coo’s nest” crowd managed to get in control. They are all nuts.
Yes. With each passing day, I have the distinct impression that they are deliberately piling on the indignities, almost just for the entertainment value of seeing how high the straws can go before the back breaks.
It is difficult to swallow some of this and at this point I’m choking on it.
Generations have failed us.
WE must deal with the result. The question is can they be humanly deprogrammed? If not, then what?
“Yes. With each passing day, I have the distinct impression that they are deliberately piling on the indignities, almost just for the entertainment value of seeing how high the straws can go before the back breaks.”
You, too?
The agency incorporated a preliminary price of $21 for every ton of carbon dioxide expelled from vehicles to help reach its new standard of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. That amounts to about 20 cents per gallon or, as two economists claim, a level that's "far too small a price incentive to prompt substantive mitigation measures."I wonder how many economists thrown down elevator shafts it would take to have the entire profession STFU about the global warming hoax?
According to costco.com, the right price is $20.21 + s/h
It all depends on the form and the purity. Carbon dioxide in pure and solid form typically sells for over $1 per pound.
This is madness. Sheer utter madness. If these kinds of idiotic bullshit don’t stop by newyears, there’s gonna be hell to pay. I am thoroughly fed up and I really don’t care what happens anymore.
If you let the greens tell you what they really think, rather than what they think they can shove down our throats and get away with, it would be about a billion dollars a gallon.
Yeah. And I know I am not alone in feeling this way.
If you want to know what you’re up against, click the link and read some of the comments there.
Can promises to plant trees in your property be sold that way?
“What Is the Right Price for Carbon?”
What an odd choice of words. There is no “price” under socialism. At least, not in the conventional sense. Things still cost us, in one way or another. But there is no calculation based on price in terms of dollars. Rather, we valuate things according to how much goodwill, poltical grease, and/or violence we have to go around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
