| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
117012
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many estimates of the social cost of CO2 emissions (SCCO2) can be found in the climate economics literature. However, to date few estimates of the social costs of other greenhouse gases have been published, and most are not comparable to current estimates of the SCCO2. We construct an integrated assessment model that combines MAGICC and economic components from DICE to estimate the social costs of CO2, CH4, and N2O for the years 2010-2050, using assumptions similar to the recent U.S. government interagency SCC working group. We compare our estimates of the social costs for non-CO2 gases to those produced using the SCCO2 to value "CO2-equivalent" emissions, calculated using global warming potentials (GWPs). We examine the estimation error associated with using GWPs for single- and multi-gas abatement policies. In both cases the error can be large, so estimates of the social costs of these gases should be used whenever possible. However, if direct estimates are not available the value of reductions estimated using GWPs will typically have lower absolute errors than default estimates of zero, and provide lower bounds of the abatement benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166724
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The price of electricity for European end users typically fell until development of wind and solar energy began, but has increased since then. We estimate the savings in CO2 emissions due to solar and wind energy and calculate what end users pay per tonne CO2, assuming that price increases since the introduction of solar and wind power are due to these types of energy. These payments are in most cases well above even high and unlikely estimates of the cost of carbon and in some cases several times as high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
193742
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Earlier meta-analyses of the economic impact of climate change are updated with more data, with three new results: (1) The central estimate of the economic impact of global warming is always negative. (2) The confidence interval about the estimates is much wider. (3) Elicitation methods are most pessimistic, econometric studies most optimistic. Two previous results remain: (4) The uncertainty about the impact is skewed towards negative surprises. (5) Poorer countries are much more vulnerable than richer ones. A meta-analysis of the impact of weather shocks reveals that studies, which relate economic growth to temperature levels, cannot agree on the sign of the impact whereas studies, which make economic growth a function of temperature change do agree on the sign but differ an order of magnitude in effect size. The former studies posit that climate change has a permanent effect on economic growth, the latter that the effect is transient. The impact on economic growth implied by studies of the impact of climate change is close to the growth impact estimated as a function of weather shocks. The social cost of carbon shows a similar pattern to the total impact estimates, but with more emphasis on the impacts of moderate warming in the near and medium term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|