Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · 8d

🚨A new funding opportunity from the Resilient Energy Economies initiative! For research projects that will help communities facing acute economic risks from the energy transition. Check it out:
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/resilient-ec...

Resilient Economies Initiative Announces New RFP to Help US Fossil Fuel-dependent Communities Transition - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP

The Resilient Energy Economies (REE) initiative, a collaborative project of the Center on Global Energy...

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

2

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · 27d

Fascinating stuff is happening in Minnesota.
Tomorrow (Fri) at 2pm ET we have Carla Vita, who directs the Energy Transition Office, discussing efforts to diversify the state economy and support fossil fuel workers affected by the energy transition.
Register here: us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

Sign In | Zoom

Sign in to your Zoom account to join a meeting, update your profile, change your settings, and more!

us02web.zoom.us

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 14

I think this recommendation was in that NAS study on SCC also.
I’m not sure how much it matters.

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

Reasonable people can disagree with all this. But I’m still hoping we take advantage of this dark moment in the wilderness to have some worthwhile and overdue conversations like this one. /end

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

Of course, these aren't new insights at all. Scholars like Martin Weitzman made similar SCC critiques decades ago. The "alternative" I'm describing is basically what the IPCC is designed to do.

But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.

1 3

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

So, I’ve come to realize that the situation is almost exactly the opposite of the instinctual economist response. Real-world SCC estimates convey roughly nothing to policymakers, whereas an alternative approach could provide at least something useful.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

On the 2nd assumption: if we pull together a group of leading experts across relevant disciplines with the task of assessing climate risks and providing a science-based judgments on climate policy stringency, they will do better than an arbitrarily-picked target.

1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

I explain in my recent article that estimating SCCs entails making methodological choices that are obviously wrong, but necessary to generate specific numbers (or ranges). That process produces results that have no coherent interpretation. www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...

The Social Cost of Carbon Is Gone — and That May Be Good News for Future US Climate Policy - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %

Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

1 1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

But I don't think either assumption is true.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

If these two assumptions were true, then Sunstein’s argument follows directly: the SCC provides policymakers with *some* valuable info, and something is better than nothing.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

Second, it assumes that the alternative to SCC approach is to discard the rich information scholars have developed on climate effects, damages, emissions pathways, intergenerational transfers, etc. And to instead pick arbitrary numbers (that implicitly instead of explicitly value CO2).

1 2

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

First, it assumes that SCC estimates convey *some* useful info to policymakers about climate policy stringency. So, they are estimating something coherent (like an uncertain most likely estimate, or a lower bound estimate, or even a bad estimate with meaningful error bars).

1 2

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

He's giving the instinctual response of economists to SCC critiques, and I get it. I used to say it myself. But I’ve come to realize that its validity rests on 2 problematic assumptions.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

I'm a fan of both, so unsurprisingly it’s a great conversation.
Sunstein brushes aside the SCC critique. He says the alternative is to give policymakers no info on climate policy stringency, i.e., it’s either we stick with the SCC or we fly blind [I’m paraphrasing]

2 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 13

I wrote an article about the policy irrelevance of the social cost of carbon in the hopes of prompting an uncomfortable conversation about the future use of the metric.

So I was excited to see that @Revkin asked @CassSunstein about my critique 🧵
revkin.substack.com/p/a-fresh-lo...

A Fresh Look at Climate [In]Justice (and Trump 2.0) with Cass Sunstein

I hope you’ll listen to, and share, this conversation on climate policy in the age of Trump (and lots more) with the wide-ranging Harvard economist Cass Sunstein. Sunstein worked under two presidents ...

revkin.substack.com

1 7 18

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 6

But I’d be really eager to hear more of your thoughts on this

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 6

Argh I’m sorry Paul I thought I wrote it to make it clear that you are opposed to the approach described in that paragraph rather than the use of the SCC more broadly. Just let me how to tweak further.

1 4

Reposted by Noah Kaufman

Severin Borenstein @severinborenstein.bsky.social · Aug 6

@noahqkaufman.bsky.social has a very interesting, and certainly controversial, take on trump administration abandoning the SCC. I strongly agree with many of his SCC critiques, but the alternative is also unclear, and very well could be worse. 💡🔌
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...

The Social Cost of Carbon Is Gone — and That May Be Good News for Future US Climate Policy - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %

Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.

www.energypolicy.columbia.edu

4 2 7

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 6

In other words I don’t find the lack of a good alternative to be a compelling justification for claiming we can do something that we cannot

1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · Aug 6

Thanks Severin. I’m sure you’re right that there are worse ways to do regulatory analysis. But I think these two issues are separable: 1) more transparency about our inability to estimate meaningful SCCs; 2) what to do instead.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · May 31

Can you send me link to that article?

1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · May 31

Agree.
But also you’re way too nice.
That’s not a reasonable critique of your book.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · May 31

I hear that first critique a lot. They like to set up a binary where the only 2 possible options are SWF optimization and politically chosen target.

1 1

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · May 31

My guess is they don’t like the implications.
But I’m genuinely curious if you get substantive critiques.

1 2

Noah Kaufman @noahqkaufman.bsky.social · May 31

Having programs with costs and almost no benefits is very bad. Especially given headwinds to decarb now.

1