Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon for Use in U.S. Federal Rulemakings: A Summary and Interpretation
AbstractThe United States Government recently concluded a year-long process to develop a range of values representing the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, commonly referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC). These values are currently used in benefit-cost analyses to assess potential federal regulations. For 2010, the central value of the SCC is $21 per ton of CO2 emissions and sensitivity analyses are to be conducted at $5, $35, and $65 (2007$). This paper summarizes the methodology and process used to develop the SCC values, complemented with our own commentary about how the SCC can be used to inform regulatory decisions and areas where further research would be particularly useful.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 16913.
Date of creation: Mar 2011
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as “Developing a Social Cost of Carbon for US Regulator y Analysis: A Methodology and Interpretation,” (with Elizabeth Kopits and Ann Wolverton), Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 2013, 7 (1): 23–46; also MIT Dept. of Economics WP No. 11-04; CEEPR WP No. 2011-006.
Note: EEE PE
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Michael Greenstone & Elizabeth Kopits & Ann Wolverton, 2011. "Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon for Use in U.S. Federal Rulemakings: A Summary and Interpretation," Working Papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research 1106, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters
- Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-04-09 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENE-2011-04-09 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2011-04-09 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-REG-2011-04-09 (Regulation)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Anthoff, David & Hepburn, Cameron & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009.
"Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change,"
Ecological Economics, Elsevier,
Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 836-849, January.
- David Anthoff & Cameron Hepburn & Richard S.J. Tol, 2006. "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change," Working Papers, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University FNU-121, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Dec 2006.
- David Anthoff & Cameron Hepburn & Richard S.J. Tol, 2007. "Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damage Costs of Climate Change," Working Papers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei 2007.43, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Stephen Newbold & Adam Daigneault, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 351-377, November.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.