IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v610y2022i7933d10.1038_s41586-022-05224-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Rennert

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Frank Errickson

    (Princeton University)

  • Brian C. Prest

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Lisa Rennels

    (University of California)

  • Richard G. Newell

    (Resources for the Future)

  • William Pizer

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Cora Kingdon

    (University of California)

  • Jordan Wingenroth

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Roger Cooke

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Bryan Parthum

    (Environmental Protection Agency)

  • David Smith

    (Environmental Protection Agency)

  • Kevin Cromar

    (New York University
    NYU Grossman School of Medicine)

  • Delavane Diaz

    (EPRI)

  • Frances C. Moore

    (University of California)

  • Ulrich K. Müller

    (Princeton University)

  • Richard J. Plevin

    (Independent researcher)

  • Adrian E. Raftery

    (University of Washington)

  • Hana Ševčíková

    (University of Washington)

  • Hannah Sheets

    (Rochester Institute of Technology)

  • James H. Stock

    (Harvard University)

  • Tammy Tan

    (Environmental Protection Agency)

  • Mark Watson

    (Princeton University)

  • Tony E. Wong

    (Rochester Institute of Technology)

  • David Anthoff

    (University of California)

Abstract

The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit–cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44–$413 per tCO2: 5%–95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2%, a value 3.6 times higher than the US government’s current value of $51 per tCO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the new open-source Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared with estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Rennert & Frank Errickson & Brian C. Prest & Lisa Rennels & Richard G. Newell & William Pizer & Cora Kingdon & Jordan Wingenroth & Roger Cooke & Bryan Parthum & David Smith & Kevin Cromar & Dela, 2022. "Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2," Nature, Nature, vol. 610(7933), pages 687-692, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:610:y:2022:i:7933:d:10.1038_s41586-022-05224-9
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:610:y:2022:i:7933:d:10.1038_s41586-022-05224-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.