What’s The Most Important Number For ‘Climate Change’? The Social Cost Of Carbon

Extreme Warmists are hot to trot to push the notion of the social cost of carbon. Why?

The social cost of carbon might be the most important number on climate change

Economists are urging the U.S. government to adopt a higher number for the social cost of carbon emissions.

Why it matters: The social cost of carbon might be the single most important number on climate change, one that helps decide how much we’re willing to invest to slow global warming — and how much we actually value the future.

Driving the news: On Monday, prominent economists Nicholas Stern and Joseph Stiglitz published a paper making the case that the U.S. needs to reassess how it calculates the social cost of carbon.

• The social cost of carbon reflects the ultimate estimated dollar price to society for every new metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
• Under President Obama’s administration, the figure was estimated at $50 per metric ton by 2030, in 2007 dollars.
• Stern and Stiglitz, reevaluating the economic models used to estimate future climate damages and putting more value on the wellbeing of future generations, suggest a social cost at the upper end of a $50–$100 per metric ton range.

See, this isn’t just about putting a price on “carbon”, but linking it to everyone’s lives.

Be smart: The social cost of carbon represents the economic benefit that will come from reducing carbon emissions, which means that setting a higher cost justifies regulations that make emitting carbon more expensive.

• The number is also one of the best representations of what the present feels it owes future generations that will suffer the most from climate change — or benefit, if we can curb its worst effects.

Got that? It’s what you owe future generations, hence, it’s important that government puts a price on the way you live your life, which gives them control of your life and your hard earned money. Why do all the little climate cult disciples not realize that they themselves will be recipients of all the bad parts of their cult? Are they so enthused to give up their money and freedom?