Keep climate policy focused on the social cost of carbon

Joseph E Aldy,Matthew J Kotchen,Robert N Stavins,James H Stock,Joseph E. Aldy,Matthew J. Kotchen,Robert N. Stavins,James H. Stock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi7813

IF: 56.9

2021-08-20

Science

Abstract:A proposed shift away from the SCC is ill advised

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Social cost of carbon under a carbon-neutral pathway

Aobo Liu,Yating Chen,Xiao Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6819

IF: 6.7

2022-04-29

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Abstract Climate change is the challenge of the century, and achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement will require worldwide cooperation and mutual effort. Over 120 countries have made their net-zero commitments, and quantifying the social cost of carbon (SCC), i.e. the climate damage caused by an additional ton of CO 2 emissions, under a carbon-neutral pathway would provide a carbon price benchmark for policymakers. Here, we set in detail the emission trajectories of different jurisdictions under a carbon-neutral pathway based on the submitted nationally determined contributions. We then assess global and regional warming, climate change damages, and the SCC with the Policy Analysis of Greenhouse Effect integrated assessment model. We find a peak warming of about 2.1 °C relatives to pre-industrial levels in this century under our carbon-neutral emission pathway. And even if all countries meet their carbon-neutral commitments, this would not be sufficient to limit global warming to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial levels. We compare the SCC using fixed discount rates, dynamic discounting, and an equity weighting approach. Notably, the introduction of equity weights would increase the estimated SCC from 79 (11–186) to 291 (83–592) US$ per tCO 2 . Climate change damages will be borne primarily by warmer and poorer countries, and this profound inequality would likely undermine efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. Statistics on current carbon taxes and carbon trading prices show that they are notably lower than global or even regional SCCs, suggesting that the current system does not adequately reflect the global externalities of CO 2 emissions. More studies are needed to assess the equity aspects of climate change impacts, to help refine mechanisms to align domestic interests with global interests, and to facilitate the implementation of national carbon-neutral commitments in place.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
On Simple Rules for the Social Cost of Carbon

Cees Withagen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00686-x

2022-05-10

Environmental and Resource Economics

Abstract:The objective of this paper is to assess the use of simple rules for the social cost of carbon. It is shown that several interrelated objections may apply. The main issues are the following. First, the underlying theoretical models typically assume that the economy finds itself on a balanced growth path, implying that addressing the issue of designing policies for the short run, which play a role in the actual policy debate, are neglected. Second, for some cases the assumptions made regarding the marginal damages of high temperature or of arge atmospheric stocks are shown to be incompatible with other assumptions made. Third, typically the rules follow from an optimal growth model and associate the social cost for a particular year with GDP for that year, but it is not always acknowledged that it should be optimal rather than actual GDP for that year. I also go into the performance of simple rules as compared to first-best.

economics,environmental studies
The Treatment of Risk and Uncertainty in the Us Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis

Simon Dietz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1973473

2011-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This note considers the treatment of risk and uncertainty in the recently established ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) for analysis of federal regulations in the United States. It argues that the analysis of the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon did not go far enough into the tail of low-probability, high-impact scenarios, and, via its approach to discounting, it mis-estimated climate risk, possibly hugely. Given the uncertainty about estimating the SCC, the note concludes by arguing that there is in fact much to commend an approach whereby a quantitative, long-term emissions target is chosen, and the price of carbon for regulatory impact analysis is then based on estimates of the marginal cost of abatement to achieve that very target.
Social cost of carbon: A revisit from a systems analysis perspective

Nikolay Khabarov,Alexey Smirnov,Michael Obersteiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.923631

IF: 5.411

2022-10-08

Frontiers in Environmental Science

Abstract:The social cost of carbon (SCC) is estimated by integrated assessment models (IAMs) and is widely used by government agencies to value climate policy impacts. Although there is an ongoing debate about obtained numerical estimates and related uncertainties, little attention has been paid so far to the SCC calculation method itself. This work attempts to fill the gap by providing the theoretical background and economic interpretation of the SCC calculation approach implemented in the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy) IAM. Our analysis indicates that the present calculation method is unable to reflect the linkages between two key IAM components—complex interconnected systems—climate and economy, both influenced by emission abatement policies. Within the modeling framework of DICE, the presently estimated SCC valuates emissions, which are beyond policy control, against consumption of products, which cannot be produced by the economy. This makes the SCC irrelevant for application in climate-economic policies and, therefore, calls for a replacement by a more appropriate indicator. An apparent SCC alternative, which can be considered for policy formulation, is the direct output of the DICE model, the socially optimal marginal abatement cost (SMAC), which corresponds to technological possibilities at the optimal level of carbon emissions abatement. In policymaking, because of the revealed SCC deficiency, great attention needs to be paid to the use of estimates obtained earlier.

environmental sciences
Optimal Climate Policy As If the Transition Matters

Emanuele Campiglio,Simon Dietz,Frank Venmans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4307483

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:The optimal transition to a low-carbon economy must account for adjustment costs in switching from dirty to clean capital, technological progress, and economic and climatic shocks. We study the low-carbon transition using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with emissions abatement costs calibrated on a large energy modelling database, solved with recursive methods. We show how capital inertia puts upward pressure on emissions and temperatures in the short run, but that nonetheless it is optimal to actively disinvest from – to ‘strand’ – a significant share of the dirty capital stock. Conversely, clean technological progress, as well as uncertainty about climatic and economic factors, lead to lower emissions and temperatures in the long run. Putting these factors together, we estimate a net premium of 33% on the optimal carbon price today relative to a ‘straw man’ model with perfect capital mobility, fixed abatement costs and no uncertainty.
The social cost of carbon driven by green behaviors

Min Fu,Yixiang Zhang,Lixin Tian,Zaili Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286534

IF: 3.7

2023-06-30

PLoS ONE

Abstract:With the change of climate issues and the needs of economic development, the idea of practicing green and low-carbon behaviors sinks deeper and deeper into people's hearts. This paper based on the social cost of carbon (SCC) model, this paper constructs a new carbon social cost model by adding the impact of green low-carbon behavior. Classify climate states, based on Bayesian statistical knowledge, study the posterior probability distribution of climate state transitions, and discuss the optimal carbon policy for different climate states by balancing emission utility costs and utility weighted carbon marginal products. This article also discusses the damage caused by rising temperatures and explores their impact on carbon price policies. then, the paper calculates SCC under four kinds of climate states, which will be visually displayed with graphs. Finally, we compare SCC obtained in this paper with that in other researches. The results show that: (1) Climate status has a significant impact on carbon policy, and carbon price predictions will dynamically change with climate status. (2) Green low-carbon behavior has a positive impact on climate status. (3) There are differences in the impact of the three types of damage caused by rising temperatures on carbon price policies. (4) Green development is conducive to stabilizing the value of SCC. (5) Close monitoring of the climate state helps to update the probability of damage in time so that we can precisely adjust the corresponding policies on SCC. This study provides theoretical and empirical reference for the government to formulate carbon price policies and promote the development of social green behavior.
The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability

Jarmo S Kikstra,Paul Waidelich,James Rising,Dmitry Yumashev,Chris Hope,Chris M Brierley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1d0b

IF: 6.7

2021-09-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Abstract A key statistic describing climate change impacts is the ‘social cost of carbon dioxide’ (SCCO 2 ), the projected cost to society of releasing an additional tonne of CO 2 . Cost-benefit integrated assessment models that estimate the SCCO 2 lack robust representations of climate feedbacks, economy feedbacks, and climate extremes. We compare the PAGE-ICE model with the decade older PAGE09 and find that PAGE-ICE yields SCCO 2 values about two times higher, because of its climate and economic updates. Climate feedbacks only account for a relatively minor increase compared to other updates. Extending PAGE-ICE with economy feedbacks demonstrates a manifold increase in the SCCO 2 resulting from an empirically derived estimate of partially persistent economic damages. Both the economy feedbacks and other increases since PAGE09 are almost entirely due to higher damages in the Global South. Including an estimate of interannual temperature variability increases the width of the SCCO 2 distribution, with particularly strong effects in the tails and a slight increase in the mean SCCO 2 . Our results highlight the large impacts of climate change if future adaptation does not exceed historical trends. Robust quantification of climate-economy feedbacks and climate extremes are demonstrated to be essential for estimating the SCCO 2 and its uncertainty.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Social Cost of Carbon: What Do the Numbers Really Mean?

Nikolay Khabarov,Alexey Smirnov,Michael Obersteiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.08935

2021-11-05

Abstract:Social cost of carbon (SCC) is estimated by integrated assessment models (IAM) and is widely used by government agencies to value climate policy impacts. While there is an ongoing debate about obtained numerical estimates and related uncertainties, little attention has been paid so far to the SCC calculation method itself. This work attempts to fill the gap by providing theoretical background and economic interpretation of the SCC calculation approach implemented in the open-source IAM DICE (Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy). Our analysis indicates that the present calculation method provides an approximation that might work pretty well in some cases, while in the other cases the estimated value substantially (by the factor of four) deviates from the "true" value. This deviation stems from the inability of the present calculation method to catch the linkages between two key IAM's components -- complex interconnected systems -- climate and economy, both influenced by emission abatement policies. Within the modeling framework of DICE, the presently estimated SCC valuates policy-uncontrolled emissions against economically unjustified consumption, which makes it irrelevant for application in climate-economic policies and, therefore, calls for a replacement by a more appropriate indicator. An apparent SCC alternative, which can be employed for policy formulation is the direct output of the DICE model -- the socially optimal marginal abatement cost (SMAC), which corresponds to technological possibilities at optimal level of carbon emissions abatement. In policy making, because of the previously employed implicit approximation, great attention needs to be paid to the use of SCC estimates obtained earlier.

General Economics
Revisiting the social cost of carbon

William D. Nordhaus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609244114

IF: 11.1

2017-01-31

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Significance The most important single economic concept in the economics of climate change is the social cost of carbon (SCC). At present, regulations with more than $1 trillion of benefits have been written for the United States that use the SCC in their economic analysis. The DICE model (Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy) is one of three integrated assessment models used to estimate the SCC in the United States. The present study presents updated estimates based on a revised DICE model (DICE-2016R). The study estimates that the SCC is $31 per ton of CO 2 in 2010 US$ for the current period (2015). This study will be an important step in developing the next generation of estimates of the SCC in the United States and other countries.
The Social Cost of Carbon with Economic and Climate Risks

Yongyang Cai,Kenneth L. Judd,Thomas S. Lontzek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.06909

2015-04-29

Abstract:There is great uncertainty about future climate conditions and the appropriate policies for managing interactions between the climate and the economy. We develop a multidimensional computational model to examine how uncertainties and risks in the economic and climate systems affect the social cost of carbon (SCC)---that is, the present value of the marginal damage to economic output caused by carbon emissions. The SCC is substantially increased by economic and climate risks at both current and future times. Furthermore, the SCC is itself a stochastic process with significant variation; for example, the basic elements of risk incorporated into our model cause the SCC in 2100 to be, with significant probability, ten times what it would be without those risks. We have only imprecise information about what parameter values are best for approximating reality. To deal with this parametric uncertainty we perform extensive uncertainty quantification and show that these findings are robust for a wide range of alternative specifications. More generally, this work shows that large-scale computing can enable economists to examine substantially more complex and realistic models for the purposes of policy analysis.

General Economics
Eight priorities for calculating the social cost of carbon

Gernot Wagner,David Anthoff,Maureen Cropper,Simon Dietz,Kenneth T. Gillingham,Ben Groom,J. Paul Kelleher,Frances C. Moore,James H. Stock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00441-0

IF: 64.8

2021-02-19

Nature

Abstract:One of the first executive orders US President Joe Biden signed in January began a process to revise the social cost of carbon (SCC). This metric is used in cost–benefit analyses to inform climate policy. It puts a monetary value on the harms of climate change, by tallying all future damages incurred globally from the emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide now.

multidisciplinary sciences
Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2

Kevin Rennert,Frank Errickson,Brian C. Prest,Lisa Rennels,Richard G. Newell,William Pizer,Cora Kingdon,Jordan Wingenroth,Roger Cooke,Bryan Parthum,David Smith,Kevin Cromar,Delavane Diaz,Frances C. Moore,Ulrich K. Müller,Richard J. Plevin,Adrian E. Raftery,Hana Ševčíková,Hannah Sheets,James H. Stock,Tammy Tan,Mark Watson,Tony E. Wong,David Anthoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9

2022-09-02

Huanjing Kexue/Environmental Science

Abstract:The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit-cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography, and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency, and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is 44-413/t-CO2: 5-95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2 percent, a value 3.6-times higher than the US government's current value of $51/t-CO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the new open-source GIVE model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared to estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate policies.

English Else
Climate Policy Enhances Efficiency: A Macroeconomic Portfolio Effect

Jan Siegmeier,Linus Mattauch,Ottmar Edenhofer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2555565

2015-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Carbon pricing regulates emission flows and collects rents from underlying fossil resource stocks. The resulting investment shift implies lower climate policy costs and improved welfare if capital is underaccumulated. We prove that under emission trading, such a beneficial macroeconomic portfolio effect between fossil stocks and capital is induced if some permits are auctioned. Alternatively, a carbon tax also induces a portfolio effect, but cannot simultaneously implement a given mitigation path and collect an arbitrary rent share. Finally, treating the right to recurrently receive a share of total emission permits as a tradable asset is formally, but not politically equivalent.
Climate Taxation Distraction Accelerating Global Warming

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-024-00410-w

IF: 6.8622

2024-10-05

Development

Abstract:Faith in market ideology has encouraged belief that carbon markets will mitigate global warming by buying carbon credits to release greenhouse gases (GHGs). Carbon offset markets claiming to achieve net-zero emissions actually offer ways to avoid emission cuts. Various discounts undermine their purported efficacy and impact. Ignoring equity considerations, such as common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), carbon markets favor the powerful, with little actual decarbonization. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is biased and protectionist. In practice, the market approach is too biased and slow to meet the increasingly urgent global heating challenge.

developmental biology
Internalization of the social cost of carbon in each of the countries of the world—An economic assessment of its impacts

Mardones, Cristian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-024-10261-6

IF: 3.1339

2024-09-22

Energy Efficiency

Abstract:The internalization of the social cost of carbon (SCC) is the most efficient alternative to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. However, the carbon pricing initiatives implemented in many countries differ significantly from the empirical estimates of the SCC. Therefore, this study simulates the economic and environmental effects of internalizing the SCC in all the world's nations through the environmental extension of a multi-regional input–output (MRIO) price model. The results show that the most affected countries economically are characterized by having an energy matrix with high participation of fossil fuels. In addition, there are relevant increases in the prices of energy and food, which are likely to raise poverty rates in low- and middle-income countries. It is concluded that the global emission reduction can vary between 5.1% and 50.3% depending on the SCC used, and only ten countries explain 77% of this reduction. In addition, global emissions reduction falls if data from a more recent base year is used, demonstrating that the structural transformations of the economy also strongly affect the impacts of carbon pricing. Finally, it is recommended that energy efficiency measures be incentivized to address partially this cost shock.

energy & fuels,green & sustainable science & technology,environmental studies
A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices

Noah Kaufman,Alexander R. Barron,Wojciech Krawczyk,Peter Marsters,Haewon McJeon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0880-3

IF: 30.7

2020-08-17

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:The social cost of carbon (SCC) is commonly described and used as the optimal CO2 price. However, the wide range of SCC estimates provides limited practical assistance to policymakers setting specific CO2 prices. Here we describe an alternate near-term to net zero (NT2NZ) approach, estimating CO2 prices needed in the near term for consistency with a net-zero CO2 emissions target. This approach dovetails with the emissions-target-focused approach that frames climate policy discussions around the world, avoids uncertainties in estimates of climate damages and long-term decarbonization costs, offers transparency about sensitivities and enables the consideration of CO2 prices alongside a portfolio of policies. We estimate illustrative NT2NZ CO2 prices for the United States; for a 2050 net-zero CO2 emission target, prices are US$34 to US$64 per metric ton in 2025 and US$77 to US$124 in 2030. These results are most influenced by assumptions about complementary policies and oil prices.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Climate Module Disparities Explain Inconsistent Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon in Integrated Assessment Models

Tianpeng Wang,Fei Teng,Xu Deng,Jun Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.005

IF: 14.944

2022-01-01

One Earth

Abstract:The social cost of carbon (SCC) determines the quantifiable cost (in monetary value) of emitting CO2 and has been employed by policy makers to evaluate the benefits of climate mitigation against the costs of cutting emissions. SCC is generally estimated using integrated assessment models (IAMs), primarily the DICE, FUND, and PAGE models. However, these models often report different SCC estimates. Inconsistent SCCs can lead to over-/underestimation of the costs and benefits of emission reduction, further undermining the effectiveness of climate policies. The reasons behind such inconsistent SCCs, however, remain unclear. Here, we quantitatively decompose two core components of IAMs, climate modules and damage functions, and find that the core reason for SCC disparities lies in differences in climate modules. These differences explain 60%–95% of SCC variations. SCC estimates are more consistent when DICE/FUND/PAGE IAMs are coupled with a reduced-complexity climate module. Our study highlights the importance of considering a common modeling framework by synthesizing state-of-the-art information on climate science to provide more consistent science-based advice to policy makers.
Pigou's Advice and Sisyphus’ Warning: Carbon Pricing with Non-Permanent Carbon-Dioxide Removal

Matthias Kalkuhl,Max Franks,Friedemann Gruner,Kai Lessmann,Ottmar Edenhofer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4315996

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere is becoming an important option to achieve net zero climate targets. This paper develops a welfare and public economics perspective on optimal policies for carbon removal and storage in non-permanent sinks like forests, soil, oceans, wood products or chemical products. We derive a new metric for the valuation of non-permanent carbon storage, the social cost of carbon removal (SCC-R), which embeds also the conventional social cost of carbon emissions. We show that the contribution of CDR is to create new carbon sinks that should be used to reduce transition costs, even if the stored carbon is released to the atmosphere eventually. Importantly, CDR does not raise the ambition of optimal temperature levels unless initial atmospheric carbon stocks are excessively high. For high initial atmospheric carbon stocks, CDR allows to reduce the optimal temperature below initial levels. Finally, we characterize three different policy regimes that ensure an optimal deployment of carbon removal: downstream carbon pricing, upstream carbon pricing, and carbon storage pricing. The policy regimes differ in their informational and institutional requirements regarding monitoring, liability and financing.
Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being

Mark Budolfson,Francis Dennig,Frank Errickson,Simon Feindt,Maddalena Ferranna,Marc Fleurbaey,David Klenert,Ulrike Kornek,Kevin Kuruc,Aurélie Méjean,Wei Peng,Noah Scovronick,Dean Spears,Fabian Wagner,Stéphane Zuber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01217-0

IF: 30.7

2021-11-29

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Existing estimates of optimal climate policy ignore the possibility that carbon tax revenues could be used in a progressive way; model results therefore typically imply that near-term climate action comes at some cost to the poor. Using the Nested Inequalities Climate Economy (NICE) model, we show that an equal per capita refund of carbon tax revenues implies that achieving a 2 °C target can pay large and immediate dividends for improving well-being, reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. In an optimal policy calculation that weighs the benefits against the costs of mitigation, the recommended policy is characterized by aggressive near-term climate action followed by a slower climb towards full decarbonization; this pattern—which is driven by a carbon revenue Laffer curve—prevents runaway warming while also preserving tax revenues for redistribution. Accounting for these dynamics corrects a long-standing bias against strong immediate climate action in the optimal policy literature.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Climate uncertainty impacts on optimal mitigation pathways and social cost of carbon

Christopher J. Smith,Alaa Al Khourdajie,Pu Yang,Doris Folini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acedc6

2023-07-18

Abstract:Emissions pathways used in climate policy analysis are often derived from integrated assessment models. However, such emissions pathways do not typically include climate feedbacks on socioeconomic systems and by extension do not consider climate uncertainty in their construction. We use a well-known cost-benefit integrated assessment model, the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, with its climate component replaced by the Finite-amplitude Impulse Response (FaIR) model (v2.1). The climate uncertainty in FaIR is sampled with an ensemble that is consistent with historically observed climate and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessed ranges of key climate variables such as equilibrium climate sensitivity. Three scenarios are produced: a pathway similar to the "optimal welfare" scenario of DICE that has similar warming outcomes to current policies, and pathways that limit warming to "well-below" 2C and 1.5C with low overshoot, in line with Paris Agreement long-term temperature goals. Climate uncertainty alone is responsible for a factor of five variation (5-95% range) in the social cost of carbon in the 1.5C scenario. CO2 emissions trajectories resulting from the optimal level of emissions abatement in all pathways are also sensitive to climate uncertainty, with 2050 emissions ranging from -12 to +14 GtCO2/yr in the 1.5C scenario. Equilibrium climate sensitivity and the strength of present-day aerosol effective radiative forcing are strong determinants of social cost of carbon and mid-century CO2 emissions. This shows that narrowing climate uncertainty leads to more refined estimates for the social cost of carbon and provides more certainty about the optimal rate of emissions abatement. Including climate and climate uncertainty in integrated assessment model derived emissions scenarios would address a key missing feedback in scenario construction.

General Economics,Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics

Keep climate policy focused on the social cost of carbon

Social cost of carbon under a carbon-neutral pathway

On Simple Rules for the Social Cost of Carbon

The Treatment of Risk and Uncertainty in the Us Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis

Social cost of carbon: A revisit from a systems analysis perspective

Optimal Climate Policy As If the Transition Matters

The social cost of carbon driven by green behaviors

The social cost of carbon dioxide under climate-economy feedbacks and temperature variability

Social Cost of Carbon: What Do the Numbers Really Mean?

Revisiting the social cost of carbon

The Social Cost of Carbon with Economic and Climate Risks

Eight priorities for calculating the social cost of carbon

Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2

Climate Policy Enhances Efficiency: A Macroeconomic Portfolio Effect

Climate Taxation Distraction Accelerating Global Warming

Internalization of the social cost of carbon in each of the countries of the world—An economic assessment of its impacts

A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices

Climate Module Disparities Explain Inconsistent Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon in Integrated Assessment Models

Pigou's Advice and Sisyphus’ Warning: Carbon Pricing with Non-Permanent Carbon-Dioxide Removal

Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being

Climate uncertainty impacts on optimal mitigation pathways and social cost of carbon