IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mee/wpaper/1106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon for Use in U.S. Federal Rulemakings: A Summary and Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Greenstone
  • Elizabeth Kopits
  • Ann Wolverton

Abstract

The 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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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 1106, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mee:wpaper:1106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2011-006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 2007. "The Value of Life and the Rise in Health Spending," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(1), pages 39-72.
    2. Stephen Newbold & Adam Daigneault, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 351-377, November.
    3. Becker Gary S. & Murphy Kevin M. & Topel Robert H., 2011. "On the Economics of Climate Policy," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-27, May.
      • Becker, Gary S. & Murphy, Kevin M. & Topel, Robert H., 2010. "On the Economics of Climate Policy," Working Papers 234, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    4. Anthoff, David & Hepburn, Cameron & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 836-849, January.
    5. Adam Daigneault & Steve Newbold, 2009. "Climate Response Uncertainty and the Unexpected Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions," NCEE Working Paper Series 200806, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Mar 2009.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    2. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    3. Robert S. Pindyck, 2011. "Fat Tails, Thin Tails, and Climate Change Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 258-274, Summer.
    4. Lin, Boqiang & Zhao, Hengsong, 2023. "Tracking policy uncertainty under climate change," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Hwang, In Chang & Tol, Richard S.J. & Hofkes, Marjan W., 2016. "Fat-tailed risk about climate change and climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 25-35.
    6. Golub, Alexander & Lubowski, Ruben & Piris-Cabezas, Pedro, 2017. "Balancing Risks from Climate Policy Uncertainties: The Role of Options and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 90-98.
    7. Kousky, Carolyn & Kopp, Robert E. & Cooke, Roger M., 2011. "Risk premia and the social cost of carbon: A review," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-24.
    8. Alex L. Marten, 2014. "The Role Of Scenario Uncertainty In Estimating The Benefits Of Carbon Mitigation," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-29.
    9. Kelly, David L. & Tan, Zhuo, 2015. "Learning and climate feedbacks: Optimal climate insurance and fat tails," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 98-122.
    10. Loïc Berger & Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "Managing Catastrophic Climate Risks Under Model Uncertainty Aversion," Post-Print hal-03027150, HAL.
    11. Joseph E. Aldy & Alan J. Krupnick & Richard G. Newell & Ian W. H. Parry & William A. Pizer, 2010. "Designing Climate Mitigation Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 903-934, December.
    12. Soheil Shayegh & Valerie Thomas, 2015. "Adaptive stochastic integrated assessment modeling of optimal greenhouse gas emission reductions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Williams, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2017. "Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 302-311.
    14. In Hwang & Frédéric Reynès & Richard Tol, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Fat-Tailed Risk: An Application of Dice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 415-436, November.
    15. Robert S. Pindyck, 2013. "Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(3), pages 860-872, September.
    16. Iverson, Terrence, 2012. "Communicating Trade-offs amid Controversial Science: Decision Support for Climate Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 74-90.
    17. Gerst, Michael D. & Howarth, Richard B. & Borsuk, Mark E., 2010. "Accounting for the risk of extreme outcomes in an integrated assessment of climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4540-4548, August.
    18. Loïc Berger & Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "Managing Catastrophic Climate Risks Under Model Uncertainty Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 749-765, March.
    19. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A. & Bueno, Ramón, 2010. "Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1657-1665, June.
    20. van der Ploeg, Frederick & ,, 2018. "Pricing Carbon Under Economic and Climactic Risks: Leading-Order Results from Asymptotic Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 12642, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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 and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mee:wpaper:1106. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sharmila Ganguly (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemitus.html .

    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.