Menus Subscribe Search

How Much Does Global Warming Cost?

• July 18, 2011 • 3:05 PM

A new report suggests that the social cost of carbon — the economic damage done by one ton of carbon dioxide emissions — could be drastically higher than government agencies have estimated.

Most people understand that global warming is happening, but it is hard to get a firmer sense of exactly what effects it is going to have on the future of the world. Governments have started to approach climate change as a situation to evaluate using cost-benefit analysis: How much should we spend to fix the problem? How much will it cost us if we don’t?

As Judith Schwartz detailed in February (“The Social Cost of Carbon”), the U.S. government began regulating carbon dioxide emissions via the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The U.S. calculated the social cost of carbon — the economic damage done by 1 ton of carbon dioxide emissions — through an Interagency Working Group made up of many different cabinet departments and agencies. They estimated the economic damage per ton of CO2 to be just $21, or only about 21 cents per gallon of gasoline.

That price was quite similar to the AUS$23 per metric ton Australia is assessing its 500 top carbon emitters beginning July 1, 2012, according to an announcement Prime Minister Julia Gillard made earlier this month. (That AUS$23 is roughly US$24.50 at current exchange rates.)

“[Five hundred big polluters] now know how much they will pay unless they cut their pollution,” she said in a nationwide address. “And they can start planning to cut pollution now. … By 2020, our carbon price will take 160 million [metric] tons of pollution out of the atmosphere every year. That’s the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.”

A new peer-reviewed report, “Climate Risks and Carbon Prices: Revising the Social Cost of Carbon,” by economists Frank Ackerman of Tufts and Elizabeth A. Stanton of the Stockholm Environmental Institute, suggests that the true cost of carbon most likely is drastically higher than either government’s estimates. The report was published by E3 Network (Economics for Equity & Environment), “a national network of economists developing new arguments for the active protection of human health and the environment.”

Of the government’s $21-per-ton number, the authors admit: “Such low costs are difficult to reconcile with the belief that it is urgent to take action to address serious climate risks.”

But how much do they think it costs?

Rather than start from scratch, the authors used the same models as the government’s working group did, tweaking them only to account for a few “big uncertainties.”

The uncertainties boil down to these two: First, an estimation should take into account how quickly global warming will occur. Second, it is simple enough to understand that the economic damage will be greater in the longer term as temperature rises, but it is less certain exactly what it will cost and when. The calculation has to be built on this interrelated range of possibilities, from the mild to the catastrophic.

How do their findings compare with the government’s? “Our re-analysis, including those factors, shows that the [social cost of carbon] could be much higher [than $21 per ton]. In our worst case, it could be almost $900 in 2010, rising to $1,500 in 2050. If the damages per ton of carbon dioxide are that high, then almost anything that reduces emissions is worth doing.”

In terms of a policy response, the authors conclude that it is likely that the social cost of carbon is either equal to or far greater than the maximum amount that could feasibly be spent on reducing emissions. “It is unequivocally less expensive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” they write, “than to suffer climate damages.”

It’s doubtful that the current Congress will respond in any way to Ackerman and Stanton’s report. Rather than addressing the economic damage created by pollution, for example, it’s defunding the government’s enforcement of its existing energy efficiency standards.

In Australia, Gillard told the nation that a carbon tax, while assessed on big companies, ultimately will be felt by individuals. “Some of the cost paid by big polluters will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy. The price impact will be modest but I know family budgets are always tight. So I have decided most of the money raised from the carbon price will be used to fund tax cuts, pension increases and higher family payments.”

If Ackerman and Stanton’s analysis is correct, Australia’s new carbon tax is probably far too low. But it is a huge and praiseworthy step to go from large companies having no accountability for the negative externalities of their carbon pollution, to having some accountability. From there, the amount of the tax can change as our understanding of the social cost of carbon changes. The first step is the hardest.

Sign up for the free Miller-McCune.com e-newsletter.

“Like” Miller-McCune on Facebook.

Follow Miller-McCune on Twitter.

Add Miller-McCune.com news to your site.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Dan Watson
Dan Watson is a fellow at Miller-McCune. An editor originally from York, Pa., he has a bachelor’s in English from Emory University, and previously served as the editorial intern for Grist.

More From Dan Watson

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 12 • 4:00 PM

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Plastic Bags

California wants you to pay for your plastic bags. (FYI: That’s not an infringement on your constitutional rights.)


September 12 • 2:00 PM

Should We Trust the Hearts of White People?

On the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, revisiting a clip of James Baldwin on the Dick Cavett Show.


September 12 • 12:00 PM

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you’d be if the government didn’t interfere with your life, but that’s not what the research shows.


September 12 • 10:00 AM

Whispering in the Town Square: Can Twitter Provide an Escape From All Its Noise?

Twitter has created its own buzzing, digital agora, but when users want to speak amongst themselves, they tend to leave for another platform. It’s a social network that helps you find people to talk to—but barely lets you do any talking.


September 12 • 9:03 AM

How Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human History

We thought we knew how we’d been shaped by evolution. We were wrong.


September 12 • 8:02 AM

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.


September 12 • 8:00 AM

I Walked Through the Financial Crisis

Why are former Wall Street employees guiding tourists around the Financial District? Paul Hiebert signed himself up and tried to find out.


September 12 • 7:05 AM

Scams, Scams, Everywhere


September 12 • 6:17 AM

In Soccer as in Art, Motifs Matter

A new study suggests a way to quantitatively measure a team’s style through its pass flow. It may become another metric used to evaluate potential recruits.


September 12 • 4:00 AM

Comfort Food Is a Myth

New research finds that, contrary to our beliefs, such foods don’t have any special ability to improve our moods.



September 11 • 4:00 PM

Reading the Camouflage Uniforms in Ferguson: ‘You Are Now Enemy Combatants’

Why are police officers wearing green or desert camouflage in a suburban environment?


September 11 • 2:00 PM

Wage Theft: How Two States Are Fighting Against Companies That Categorize Employees as Independent Contractors

New York and Illinois have passed hard-nosed laws and taken an aggressive tack toward misclassification.


September 11 • 11:03 AM

Yes, I’m a Good Person. But Did You Hear About Her?

A new study tracks how people experience moral issues in everyday life.


September 11 • 11:00 AM

Searching for Everyday Morality

Experimenters use text messages to study morality beyond the lab.


September 11 • 8:00 AM

The Geography of Uber

If it continues to grow—and there are few reasons to think it won’t—will Uber transform the infrastructure of cities or glom onto what’s already there?



September 11 • 6:05 AM

One Man’s Search for an Orgasmic Life Force

It remains unclear what “orgone” actually is, but Wilhelm Reich thought you could find it by sitting inside a box.


September 11 • 4:03 AM

Jack the Ripper’s DNA: Was Aaron Kosminski Behind the Whitechapel Murders?

Russell Edwards says he’s solved the mystery. His proof might be a little threadbare.



September 10 • 4:00 PM

The Average White American’s Social Network Is Just One Percent Black

And three-quarters of white Americans report that they haven’t had a meaningful conversation with a single non-white person in the last six months.


September 10 • 2:00 PM

Eye on the Fly

The tiny fruit fly has been beloved by developmental biologists for more than a century. Turing patterns may yet explain its shape.


September 10 • 10:02 AM

Why Do Women Earn Less as Mothers and Men Earn More as Fathers?

For women, becoming a parent means you can expect to earn even less over your lifetime—unless you’re Marissa Mayer.



September 10 • 7:00 AM

Is Back Pain Ruining Your Sex Life?

You might be doing it wrong.


Follow us


Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you'd be if the government didn't interfere with your life, but that's not what the research shows.

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.

In Soccer as in Art, Motifs Matter

A new study suggests a way to quantitatively measure a team’s style through its pass flow. It may become another metric used to evaluate potential recruits.

Searching for Everyday Morality

Experimenters use text messages to study morality beyond the lab.

Is Back Pain Ruining Your Sex Life?

You might be doing it wrong.

The Big One

One country—Turkey—produces more than 70 percent of the world's hazelnuts. September/October 2014 new-big-one-2

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.