>From below: "The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 >per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes.""
Anyone care to add their 2 cents? A rather crucial measure that will determine the net value of any action taken on CO2. Greg CLIMATE: White House calls for comments on estimated social cost of carbon Jason Plautz, E&E reporterPublished: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 The Obama administration opened the comment period yesterday on its controversial estimate of the cost of carbon emissions after industry groups asked for a full rulemaking process on the figure. Groups will have until Jan. 27, 2014, to submit comments on revisions to the social cost of carbon estimate, which seeks to quantify the cost to society of each ton of carbon emissions in property damage, health care costs, lost agricultural output and other expenses. Republicans and industry representatives had raised concerns that a May 2013 revision to the SCC -- which calculated the cost to be $38 per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 compared with the 2010 estimate of $23.8 per metric ton -- would be used by the administration to determine the cost-effectiveness of a host of new regulations. They asked for a full comment period and rulemaking process to evaluate the estimate, despite the fact that it is not in fact a rule. Howard Shelanski, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, announced the comment period earlier this month after previously saying there would not need to be one under the law (E&ENews PM, Nov. 4). Shelanski defended the process used by the administration's interagency working group, saying the May estimates "reflect values that are similar to those used by other governments, international institutions and major corporations." The administration has revised the value, putting the SCC at $37 per metric ton of CO2 by 2015 following "minor technical changes." Environmentalists had commended the White House for not opening a full rulemaking process, even while questioning whether the administration had chosen values that were too low to fully reflect the risk from rising greenhouse gas emissions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
