Keep climate policy focused on the social cost of carbon

IF 44.7 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Science Pub Date : 2021-08-19 DOI:10.1126/science.abi7813
Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen, Robert N. Stavins, James H. Stock
{"title":"Keep climate policy focused on the social cost of carbon","authors":"Joseph E. Aldy,&nbsp;Matthew J. Kotchen,&nbsp;Robert N. Stavins,&nbsp;James H. Stock","doi":"10.1126/science.abi7813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div >In the context of climate change, the application of cost-benefit analysis to inform mitigation policies can help to achieve the best outcomes and avoid the worst: spending trillions of dollars but failing to get the job done (<i>1</i>). The costs of a climate policy are the abatement costs of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) (or other greenhouse gases). The standard measure of the benefits of a climate policy is the social cost of carbon (SCC), which measures the avoided economic damages associated with a metric ton of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Recently, however, there have been calls for an alternative approach to policy evaluation that ignores the benefits of avoided climate damages and instead focuses only on minimizing the compliance costs of a given, politically determined climate objective (<i>2</i>, <i>3</i>). We argue here that a shift from use of the SCC and cost-benefit analysis to an alternative approach for evaluating policy that focuses on costs alone would be misguided. Rather than advocate for alternative approaches, now is the time to support efforts to update the SCC and its application to official climate policy evaluation.</div>","PeriodicalId":21678,"journal":{"name":"Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":44.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi7813","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

In the context of climate change, the application of cost-benefit analysis to inform mitigation policies can help to achieve the best outcomes and avoid the worst: spending trillions of dollars but failing to get the job done (1). The costs of a climate policy are the abatement costs of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) (or other greenhouse gases). The standard measure of the benefits of a climate policy is the social cost of carbon (SCC), which measures the avoided economic damages associated with a metric ton of CO2 emissions. Recently, however, there have been calls for an alternative approach to policy evaluation that ignores the benefits of avoided climate damages and instead focuses only on minimizing the compliance costs of a given, politically determined climate objective (2, 3). We argue here that a shift from use of the SCC and cost-benefit analysis to an alternative approach for evaluating policy that focuses on costs alone would be misguided. Rather than advocate for alternative approaches, now is the time to support efforts to update the SCC and its application to official climate policy evaluation.
让气候政策关注碳的社会成本
在气候变化的背景下,应用成本效益分析为减缓政策提供信息,有助于实现最佳结果,避免最坏的结果:花费数万亿美元却无法完成工作(1)。气候政策的成本是减少二氧化碳(CO2)(或其他温室气体)排放的减排成本。衡量气候政策效益的标准是碳的社会成本(SCC),即衡量一公吨二氧化碳排放所避免的经济损失。然而,最近有人呼吁采用另一种政策评估方法,即忽略避免气候损害的收益,而只关注最大限度地降低特定的、由政治因素决定的气候目标的履约成本(2, 3)。我们在此认为,从使用 SCC 和成本效益分析转向仅关注成本的政策评估替代方法是错误的。与其倡导替代方法,不如支持更新 SCC 及其在官方气候政策评估中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science
Science 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
61.10
自引率
0.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2.1 months
期刊介绍: Science is a leading outlet for scientific news, commentary, and cutting-edge research. Through its print and online incarnations, Science reaches an estimated worldwide readership of more than one million. Science’s authorship is global too, and its articles consistently rank among the world's most cited research. Science serves as a forum for discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science by publishing material on which a consensus has been reached as well as including the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view. Accordingly, all articles published in Science—including editorials, news and comment, and book reviews—are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view adopted by AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Science seeks to publish those papers that are most influential in their fields or across fields and that will significantly advance scientific understanding. Selected papers should present novel and broadly important data, syntheses, or concepts. They should merit recognition by the wider scientific community and general public provided by publication in Science, beyond that provided by specialty journals. Science welcomes submissions from all fields of science and from any source. The editors are committed to the prompt evaluation and publication of submitted papers while upholding high standards that support reproducibility of published research. Science is published weekly; selected papers are published online ahead of print.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信