Premium

Judge to Biden: Your climate cost estimate is a bit high there, chief

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Back during the Obama/Biden administration, climate activists worked with the White House to establish what became known as the “Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).” This ambiguous term supposedly estimated the total “cost” to the environment for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. That estimate was used to justify expensive new regulations aimed at reducing emissions, such as the 2016 Clean Power Plan. Obama and company initially set that cost at $51 per ton. Under Donald Trump, the SCC was slashed to $7 per ton. But on Biden’s first day in office last year, one of the dozens of executive orders he issued jacked the SCC back up to $51. That move was challenged by a group of Attorneys General and this week a federal judge in Louisiana agreed with the plaintiffs, barring the Biden administration from using that figure when calculating new regulations. (Associated Press)

A federal judge in Louisiana on Friday blocked the Biden administration’s move to increase the government’s cost estimate of future damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions, a key component of federal rules for oil and gas drilling, automobiles and other industries.

U.S. District Judge James Cain of the Western District of Louisiana sided with Republican attorneys general who challenged the administration’s actions, saying they threatened to drive up energy costs while decreasing state revenues from energy production. The judge issued an injunction that bars the administration from using the higher cost estimate, which puts a dollar value on damages caused by every additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

The entire Social Cost of Carbon figure is something of a farce to begin with. It’s nothing more than an estimate based on debatable figures generated in frequently conflicting studies. They have to guess how much sea levels will rise or crops and water supplies will be impacted by carbon emissions over time. Then they guess what the total cost of such changes will be and derive a dollar value per every ton of greenhouse gasses that are released.

The major complaint under the Trump administration was that the figure was calculated based on the total assumed damage to the entire planet, not just the damage incurred in the United States. The Obama/Biden figure created a scenario where even if you believe this figure to be of use, America would be forced to pay the bill for the impact on the entire world.

The SCC has been used in a variety of government calculations and would be again if it’s enforced. This would affect the cost of leasing federal lands for drilling, RIN credits needed to comply with renewable energy mandates, and much more. As the Attorneys General in this case argued, the $51 figure would significantly drive up energy costs in almost every sector at a time when consumers are already staggering under quickly rising prices for gasoline, home heating oil, and other fuel sources. The cost of vehicles and even electricity would also rise because of scaled-up prices imposed through stricter emission standards.

If the swamp creatures in Congress are looking for yet another thing to debate this year, they might consider putting some legislative oversight in place for this entire process. The Executive branch shouldn’t be able to make determinations like this and impose those sorts of costs without congressional review. It also might not be a bad point of debate to run on as we approach the midterms. Consumers are already getting walloped by the Bidenflation crisis and paying through the nose for it. Any move to drive prices up even further will be unlikely to receive a warm reception from the voters.

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement