Most Transparent Administration, Evah to allow for input on “social cost of carbon,” and only five months late

posted at 8:41 pm on November 4, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration’s official estimate of the so-called “social cost of carbon” — i.e., a supposedly dispassionate accounting of the costs and externalities resulting from carbon dioxide emissions, used in assessing the impact of rules and regulations — has been the source of quite a bit of Congressional and industry contention over the past few months. …But I’m going to go ahead and say that that’s entirely the Obama administration’s own fault, seeing as how they tried to to sneak the heavily consequence-laden calculation into some random, obscure Department of Energy regulation about microwave ovens.

Unfortunately for them, the resulting rumpus drew a little too much attention to their underhanded maneuvering than they might have liked, and they’re finally making a few moves in broad, honest daylight, via Bloomberg:

The administration of President Barack Obama said it would revise and open for public comment its estimate of the social cost of carbon, used by agencies to calculate the benefits of regulations to address climate change.

The change follows complaints from industry lobbyists that the calculation, revised in May, exaggerated the potential costs of rising seas and droughts from climate change to justify regulations that would impose a high up-front cost for manufacturers and the energy sector. …

“We will continue to work to refine these estimates to ensure that agencies are appropriately measuring the social cost of carbon emissions as they evaluate the costs and benefits of rules,” Howard Shelanski, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House, said in a blog post on Friday announcing the changes.

Shelanski said that outside parties were able to weigh-in on the analysis as part of specific regulations; they will now be given the opportunity to comment specifically on the administration’s carbon-cost estimate.

How very munificent of them. The initial calculation in 2010 (created via executive order) priced a single ton of carbon dioxide at $23.80, and in one fell, secretive swoop, they tried to raise it to a whopping $38/ton in order to make any potential benefits of proposed rules and regulations look a lot more valuable in cost-benefit analyses; did they really think nobody was going to notice, or what?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Carbon is far far cheaper than Democrats…….

jus sayin.

ted c on November 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM

“social cost of carbon”
==========================

Social InJustice Coal!

canopfor on November 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Can we just get this administration over with already?

de rigueur on November 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Business loves capricious lawmakers.

Murphy9 on November 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Use facts.

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Lies die.

Truth lives.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

How much extra carbon does he pump out having to drop all those extra balls at Andrews AFB?

WryTrvllr on November 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

No warming for 15 years. That’s really costing a King’s ransom. Not! And with CO2, there’s actually no demonstrated causal correlation with temperatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&GGWSwindle_CO2Lag

And look at the huge huge disparity between the out of control hockey stick style projections of the bogus climate models and the actual reality of situation: flatline temperatures! EPIC FAIL: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

anotherJoe on November 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

When will oxygen be labeled a greenhouse gas and be banned?

ShainS on November 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

When will the government mandate a permanent winter and outlaw anthropogenic season change?

ShainS on November 4, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Global warming ‘pause’ may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Murphy9 on November 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM

How much carbon does a squirrel emit?

Flange on November 4, 2013 at 9:07 PM

How long until we hear…”If you like your carbon footprint you can keep it”.

farsighted on November 4, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Social cost of carbon or carbon dioxide? If a fuel containing 12 lb of carbon is burned, it produces 44 lb of carbon dioxide. So that a “cost” of $23.80/ton of carbon dioxide is only $6.49 per ton of carbon.

But then we have to figure in the social BENEFIT of carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings and animals all derive their energy for life from consumption of carbohydrates produced by plants, which contain carbon, which comes ONLY from carbon dioxide in the air. If we eat meat, the carbon content of the meat is derived from the food the livestock animal ate, which came from carbon dioxide from the air.

So the social BENEFIT of carbon dioxide in the air is equal to the price of the food we eat, divided by its carbon content in tons, multiplied by 44/12 to convert carbon to carbon dioxide. Since a benefit is a negative cost, this must be subtracted from the “social cost” of carbon dioxide in the air.

Methinks the net “social cost” of carbon dioxide is negative!

If there were no carbon dioxide in the air, all plants on earth would die, leaving no food for human consumption, meaning that carbon dioxide in the air is PRICELESS!

Steve Z on November 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

The administration of President Barack Obama said it would revise and open for public comment its estimate of the social cost of carbon…

even though all comments will be ignored as the decision is a forgone conclusion.

sadatoni on November 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Can’t they just sacrifice a few virgins and a goat to their fake g*d? Why does their religion require money from the rest of us?

batterup on November 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

If there were no carbon dioxide in the air, all plants on earth would die, leaving no food for human consumption, meaning that carbon dioxide in the air is PRICELESS!

Steve Z on November 4, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Nice going Sherlock.

Can you say “Windfall profits tax” or “Capital gains”

WryTrvllr on November 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

‘Most transparently CORRUPT administration, evah!’

GarandFan on November 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM

You can only redistribute gold after you tax it.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

“I’m Really Good at Killing People” — Barack Obama, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner

J_Crater on November 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Never fear, Obama is shutting down all new construction of coal plants with new regs to be released tomorrow.

Your electricity bill will, necessarily skyrocket.

Remember when Obama promised to bankrupt coal? That’s tomorrow.

That was way back in 2008 when President Obama was merely a candidate. Five years later, his dreams of bankrupting coal are getting taken up a notch.

Tomorrow, Dear Leader is set to unveil a regulation that forms the centerpiece of his “anti-climate change” policy announced awhile back to much green fawning.

This new regulation will reportedly ban all future coal-fired power plant construction.

Murphy9 on November 4, 2013 at 11:02 PM

I have a very cost effective way to sharply curtail toxic carbon emissions. Obtain close fitting plastic bags to be placed over the heads of all liberal, democrats, prgressives and environmentalists. They are to be tied off at the neck. This will accomplish two things. It will reduce noise polution as well as preserve liberty for our children. Be sure to start at the top.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on November 4, 2013 at 11:31 PM

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/29/the-real-costs-of-epas-laws-and-regulations/

Moreover, this is just one agency. Countless other federal, state, local and international regulatory authorities are also busy interpreting, implementing and imposing rules under thousands of laws, ordinances and treaties. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s “Ten Thousand Commandments” project calculates that federal rules alone cost American businesses and families $1.8 trillion in annual compliance costs.

Murphy9 on November 5, 2013 at 1:50 AM

Every environmentalist is made up of carbon and exhales carbon dioxide. If we want to reduce our emissions we could reduce the number of leftists.

rbj on November 5, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Social cost for whom? Vegetarians should love carbon. It makes plants happy. Trees sing in the wind when carbon fills the air. But when storms rage through the forest you can hear some angry trees screaming ‘Don’t touch my carbon’.

MaggiePoo on November 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

The Dutch have a greenhouse industry that might be the largest per capita on the planet. They have some of the best tasting and greenest vegetables you’ve ever forked. Guess what they add to the atmospheres in those greenhouses? Carbon Dioxide, to the tune of over 800 ppm (parts per million or 0.08%). That higher CO2 concentration is similar to the atmosphere from the Pleistocene when immense fauna and flora dominated the planet. Or three times what the EPA says is the ‘allowed’ concentration in the earth’s atmosphere.

There is a word for people who promote this sort of thinking.
MORONS.

Missilengr on November 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM