This is junk science because…
… the calculation is based on the notion of the “social cost of carbon,” which purports to represent the incremental environmental damage from a ton of CO2 emissions. The Obama administration set this at $21.40 in May 2010.
In reality there is no ‘social cost of carbon.” The global economy is 100% dependent upon carbon — all $65 trillion of it. Additionally, the claimed damages of carbon use are essentially 100% imaginary.
Check out Indur Goklany’s take on the social cost of carbon.
Thanks, MY Geoff. I thought that I was the only guy dubious of head start claims. If the gains from head start wear off by third grade, how do they pop up years later?
This is a lot like the claims of “$7 benefit from education for $1 spent”, or especially the claims of Head Start benefits — or, it turns out, Medicaid health benefits. The social costs of carbon are illusory.
Now, there are social costs to real pollution, but that wasn’t the discussion.
Let me make up my own multipliers, and I can prove anything. Heck, I could even prove global warming.
How do these so awfully bright folks zero out the dreaded Canadian carbon if Keystone is not constructed? Overland transport of the oil will continue as will the western pipeline for shipment to China. A conspiracy theorist might want to look into the financial backing of these folks. Who stands to benefit from not having Keystone?
In that case, what do the 55,000 other pipelines cost? It makes as much sense as protesting blood banks. It’s the economy’s blood and these anti-capitalists want to drain it.
The most conspicuous social cost of carbon is socialism.