A global carbon price of $50 a metric ton may be enough to limit catastrophic climate change, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, is crucial to curbing emissions to limit temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), according to a study published in the Energy Economics journal. Emissions reductions elsewhere will be more expensive without having China’s participation in a global climate treaty, according to the research.
Climate talks end today in Bonn, Germany after international negotiators spent two weeks discussing rules for a climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that temperature rises above 2 degrees may cause catastrophic climate change, unleashing heatwaves, rising sea levels, floods and droughts across the world.
“Not only will it be close to impossible to achieve the 2 degrees mark without China’s participation, but emissions reductions will also be more expensive,” according to an e- mailed statement today from the MIT’s Joint Program on Global Change. “Substantial costs would shift to only some countries.” The Institute said a global deal on greenhouse gases is needed to spread the burden of costs.
Without an international policy temperatures will probably rise by 5.5 degrees Celsius, according to the study. MIT found that a global carbon price of $50 a ton was needed to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees. Temperatures may rise by 3.5 degrees with a carbon price of $10 and by 2.4 degrees with a price of $30, according to the study.
Why is it that all of the answers to the world’s problems always lie in new or higher taxes?
I thought these guys were suppose to be smart at MIT
Easy money, so that they can continue living a luxury lifestyle. It has nothing to do with saving the planet, or us. It is just a scam that is easy to get away with.
Scarlet, the main problem is that they are smart and they know it. They are taught by people who have been in the ivory tower their whole life. The result is incestuous inbreeding of ideas.
In contrast, most engineering schools rely heavily on professors with industry experience. I found those professors far more interesting and useful. They were also humbling. On day one, one professor said (and I badly jumble the quote
“There are many things to remember, the first thing to remember is that your model is wrong, and the last thing to remember is that you are an idiot. If you ever think that you are not an idiot, get out before you get someone killed”.
MIT apparently does not hold to that philosophy. The more of these I read, the more I’m glad I chose not to go there
I have every confidence that $50/mt for CO2 will avert a climate catastrophe. Smart guys, these MIT researchers, for a fee they can control the climate. I can achieve the same level of climate control for $25/mt. I also offer early subscription and volume discounts to $5/mt without adversely affecting my ability to control the climate.
So there you sit, a captain of industry, working on a puzzle: what do you do with all those near-worthless carbon credits that the government gave your corporation for free. Just to ‘jump-start’ the carbon program, you know. Gosh, this is so difficult and complex. Wait, Eureka! Have the government make those credits worth $50!
Next puzzle, and it’s more difficult. Which NGO will take a tax-deductible donation for helping to drive up the price of carbon credits, and is honest enough to stay bought? You need an NGO with a good track record at manipulating factors that drive the carbon market and being totally secretive about its sources of income. And it needs to have a good PR image, so that the effort will look totally grass-roots. Hmmm… so many NGOs, so much money…