This post was originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.
"The social cost of carbon" isn't exactly a household phrase. It's an estimate of the harm caused by emitting a ton of carbon dioxide over the many decades it remains in the atmosphere. That's an important factor in calculating the costs and benefits of climate regulations. For an arcane concept, it has certainly caused a lot of controversy. The Obama administration came up with a set of estimates, which Trump then slashed by 90 percent.
In an early executive order, Biden created a task force to revisit the issue. Last week, the task force issued its first report. It's an impressive effort given that Biden is barely a month into his presidency. The document provides a clear overview of the ways in which climate science and climate economics have advanced since the Obama estimates and makes the case for rejecting the Trump administration's revisions. At least one federal court has already rejected those revisions, as well.
In no uncertain terms, the report rejects two moves made by the Trump administration as economically unsound. First, the Trump administration refused to consider any of the impacts of climate change outside the United States. The new report calls for return to using global impacts as the basis for estimating harm for several reasons. The primary reason, however, is that the United States is actually connected with the rest of the world and needs global cooperation to limit emissions. Harms in other countries actually do impact the United States, and we can't expect much cooperation if we won't even take into account the harm our emissions do to those countries. All this is, of course, quite contrary to Trump's idea that the America lives in its own separate universe and doesn't need to worry about anyone else.
The Trump administration's second error is more complicated to explain. Because carbon causes harm over very long periods, economists use something called discounting to telescope all those harms into a single number. Something called the discount rate is the key to this process. A high rate translates into a very short-sided view of harm, whereas a low rate gives much more weight to harm further in the future. The Trump administration chose a discount rate that was much too high and went against the findings of economists. The Biden administration rejects that approach, as did the Obama administration. However, the Biden administration seems poised to give even more weight to long-term harms than Obama, based on changes in economic theory in the meantime.
The report restores the Obama estimates, adjusted for inflation, as an interim measure. Otherwise, there would be nothing to replace the Trump administration's defective estimates. The report also says that a detailed list of questions for public comment will be forthcoming as it sets out to create new estimates.
The fact that the administration is giving such careful attention to this issue suggests that it is going to take cost-benefit analysis seriously. That hadn't been clear from Biden's executive orders. It remains to be seen how economic analysis will be integrated with Biden's call for increased attention to environmental justice.
Showing 2,823 results
Daniel Farber | March 2, 2021
"The social cost of carbon" isn't exactly a household phrase. It's an estimate of the harm caused by emitting a ton of carbon dioxide over the many decades it remains in the atmosphere. That's an important factor in calculating the costs and benefits of climate regulations. For an arcane concept, it has certainly caused a lot of controversy. The Obama administration came up with a set of estimates, which Trump then slashed by 90 percent. In an early executive order, Biden created a task force to revisit the issue. Last week, the task force issued its first report. It's an impressive effort given that Biden is barely a month into his presidency. The document provides a clear overview of the ways in which climate science and climate economics have advanced since the Obama estimates and makes the case for rejecting the Trump administration's revisions. At least one federal court has already rejected those revisions, as well.
Katlyn Schmitt | March 1, 2021
Businesses that violate environmental laws and permits damage our air, land, and water, sometimes irreparably. Yet too often, these polluters aren't held accountable for harming the environment and public health. In Maryland, state officials don't respond to all violations, and, when they do, they aren't always successful. Even when they are successful, fines and other penalties don't necessarily result in behavior change. As a result, Maryland polluters are largely off the hook for the "externalities" of doing business.
Daniel Farber | February 26, 2021
In the wake of the Texas blackouts, we're seeing a number of familiar moves to deflect blame by the usual suspects -- politicians, regulators, and CEOs. These evasive tactics all begin with a core truth: Eliminating all risk is impossible and would be too expensive even if it weren't. But then they spin that truth in various ways. The result is to obscure responsibility for the disaster and the steps that should be taken going forward.
Allison Stevens | February 25, 2021
Seven years ago, public officials in cash-strapped Flint, Michigan, cut city costs by tapping the Flint River as a source of public drinking water. So began the most egregious example of environmental injustice in recent U.S. history, according to Paul Mohai, a founder of the movement for environmental justice and a professor at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability.
Robert Verchick | February 24, 2021
Since I began serving on Louisiana’s Climate Initiatives Task Force, charged with finding a way to zero out net greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, there is one question I get from people more than any other: "C'mon, are you serious?" It's not that Louisianans don't see the need. Sea-level rise could soon swallow our coast, and hurricanes souped up by climate change are now the new normal. The problem is how we see ourselves. Louisiana, I'm reminded, is an oil-and-gas state. Whatever were we thinking? My quick response is Louisiana is really an energy state, with more sun and offshore wind than most of our peers.
Richard E. Levy, Robert L. Glicksman | February 23, 2021
Since taking office, President Biden has pursued an active agenda to address many urgent matters that require his prompt attention. We hope one important initiative does not get lost in transition: restoring the norms of good governance.
Alexandra Klass | February 22, 2021
It is now a week out from the start of the massive Texas grid failure that has resulted in numerous deaths; millions of people plunged into darkness; scores of communities without clean water or heat in record cold temperatures; and billions of dollars in catastrophic damage to homes, businesses and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Critical questions surround the causes of this massive disaster and how to plan for the future so that a tragedy of this scale does not happen again.
Dan Rohlf | February 22, 2021
As the U.S. Senate considers President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees, one stands out as much for the position he was appointed to as for his impressive qualifications. Two days before his inauguration, Biden announced that he planned to elevate the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), often referred to as the president’s science advisor, to Cabinet rank. The move underlines Biden’s break with the previous administration’s de-emphasis and politicization of science, which downplayed climate change, sought to slash climate-related research spending, and crafted rules designed to limit the influence of science in agency decisionmaking. Biden tapped geneticist Eric Lander, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, to lead OSTP into new prominence.
Maggie Dewane | February 19, 2021
Intersectional environmentalism is a relatively new phrase that refers to a more inclusive form of environmentalism, one that ties anti-racist principles into sectors that have long profited from overlooking or ignoring historically disenfranchised populations.