"The few estimates that the IPCC does provide should give any but the most fanatical climate advocate pause. A carbon tax instituted to meet the 1.5°C limit would have to be between 10 and 20 times higher than for a 2°C limit and require a tax of up to $6,050 per metric ton. This compares to the $92 for the undiscounted value of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated by the Obama administration. The Social Cost of Carbon aims to identify the net damage caused by each additional ton of carbon dioxide. It also equates to the benefit of reducing emissions by the same amount.
"Thus a $6,050 carbon tax to meet Biden’s net-zero goal would be set at a level more than 60 times the hypothetical climate benefits — and that’s assuming China and other large emerging economies cut their emissions too. Seen this way, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that net zero is a form of climate sadism, especially on the middle class and the less well-off."
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/508762-joe-biden-bets-on-net-zero
Conjecture 1: Someone somewhere has any idea of how much temperature increase would be caused by amount X of carbon in the atmosphere
Conjecture 2: Someone somewhere can predict what will result from the conjectured amount of temperature increase (previous temp increases have been associated with better living conditions for at least some areas of the world)
Conjecture 3: Net zero energy is possible without nuclear power
Conjecture 4: Net zero energy is the best investment humans can make to make life on this planet better for our progeny
There's no point in going beyond conjecture 1. Since no one yet has provided a testable hypothesis of carbon driving climate change, the rest is barely conjecture
The article describes the IPCC's speculation about how to get to net zero and the prescription includes global top down government directing every action and a taxation on meat, because of meat's assumed carbon cost (only true when considering cattle that are grain fed/finished).
No comments:
Post a Comment