Support undeniable patriot Mike Lindell (and us!). Buy from MyPillow with promo code “JDR” at checkout or call 800-862-0382.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Joe Biden issued an executive order reviving the social cost of carbon and the interagency working group tasked with making the social cost of carbon estimates.
Article by David Kreutzer from Daily Signal.
One of the primary policy tools for imposing climate regulations on the energy sector, the social cost of carbon supposedly measures the cost of the accumulated damage for centuries to come from emitting a ton of carbon dioxide today.
Translating those projected damages into a policy-relevant number requires a financial calculation called discounting. Armed with a peculiar notion of fairness, the working group claims fairness requires biasing the discounting process, which will perversely result in greater costs imposed on poor people that will provide more benefits to rich people. It is called “intergenerational equity.”
Because the global community is faced with constraints on what it can spend and invest, the sensible approach is to spend and invest on those things that have the most impact and give the greatest return.
Suppose we have two investment choices, one with a real (adjusted for inflation) return of 2% per year and the other with a real return of 7% per year. It should be a non-brainer to invest in projects with the 7% return instead of those with a 2% return.
This difference is especially dramatic when investing on the timescales used for climate policies.
If the investment horizon is 150 years, then $5.13 invested today, at 2% per year, will compound to $100 at the end of the 150 years. If there was another investment that returned 7% per year, then we would only need to invest $0.004 today to get the same $100 150 years from now.
Whether you’ve been jabbed or you’ve been exposed to potential vaccine shedding, you need to look at Dr. Zelenko’s new Z-DTox. Recover your health by making your immune system clean, resilient, and resistant.
The working group looks at carbon dioxide cuts as an investment opportunity. It projects that spending money to cut carbon dioxide emissions today will produce future benefits in the form of reduced damage from global warming. The benefit from reduced climate damage is the future value expected for cutting carbon dioxide emissions today.
Though so much of the future climate damage is from model projections of increasing extreme weather, it is worth noting that there has been no significant increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, or wildfires for at least the past century, and the sea level has been rising only a few millimeters per year for even longer.
Nevertheless, there are a host of ways in which carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced. For example, we can turn the heat down in our buildings, we can travel less, we can add more insulation to our homes, we can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, or we can produce energy in ways that have lower carbon dioxide emissions. All of these options involve different costs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by different amounts.
Again, because of resource constraints, we cannot do everything that reduces carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, the working group’s goal is to come up with a guide for helping choose which carbon dioxide cuts make sense. The social cost of carbon provides one such guide by comparing the payout from climate mitigation to the best reasonably expected payout from other investments.
If a ton of carbon dioxide emissions today could be expected to do $100 of damage in the year 2171 (150 years from now), and if the best alternative rate of return is 2% per year, the social cost of carbon would be $5.13. Any cut in today’s carbon dioxide emissions that costs less than $5.13 per ton should be made, while all cuts that cost more than $5.13 per ton should not be made.
In the jargon of economics and finance, the $5.13 is the present value of $100 received in 150 years, discounted at 2% per year. The interest rate is called the “discount rate.”
However, if the best reasonably expected alternative investments return 7% per year, the social cost of carbon drops dramatically to $0.004 per ton, with an equally dramatic drop in the level of carbon dioxide cuts that make sense. Over the past two centuries, the real gross return on investment in the New York Stock Exchange was between 7% and 100% per year. A study of the real return to the Standard and Poor’s index from 1928 to 2014 gives a similar result.
It makes no sense to invest $5.13 at 2% when the same future benefit could be had for less than a penny ($0.004) when invested at 7%. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some suggest.
We don’t allow Google ads here. We won’t post foot fungus treatments or soft-porn ads like other conservative news outlets. We WILL support MyPillow because they love America. You can support them and me by using promo code “JDR” at checkout.
They claim the higher discount rate unfairly penalizes those who will be alive in 2171 because it argues for less carbon dioxide mitigation today. However, the lower social cost of carbon when discounted at 7% does not say invest less, it says do not make that investment in carbon dioxide cuts that cost more than $0.004 per ton.
Perhaps the most dramatic way to illustrate this is to look at what is being denied those alive in 2171 if the social cost of carbon (in this simple example) were set at $5.13.
Carbon dioxide cuts that cost $5.13 per ton will only provide a benefit (in the form of reduced climate damage) of $100 in 2171. If that $5.13 were invested elsewhere at 7%, those alive in 2171 could, instead, receive $131,081 in value. It is hard to see how giving the future a thousand times as much is less fair to them than giving them one-thousandth as much.
Further, people 150 years from now are likely to be unimaginably richer and endowed with equally unimaginable technology with which they can adapt to and mitigate all sorts of adversities.
Looking back 150 years to around 1870 we see that the average income in the United States was barely a 20th of today’s average income (again, even after adjusting for inflation). This phenomenal growth in the past fits in the range of projected future growth.
Even this dramatic change does not capture all the improvements of economic and technological growth. For instance, the heart-wrenching tragedy of childhood mortality dropped 98% from 1870, when nearly a third of children did not live to age 5, to today, where the rate is less than 1%. As late as 1920, no more than 1% of households even had indoor plumbing or electricity.
The increase in the standard of living over the next three centuries should be at least as fantastic. Couching a greater trade-off of current sacrifice for future wealth as improving intergenerational equity gets the concept exactly backward—it is taking from the poor generation to give to the rich generation.
For simplicity, the example for the social cost of carbon used here has a hypothetical climate damage for only the year 2171. The working group will use models that capture varying amounts of climate damage for centuries into the future, but the basic principle still holds: unreasonably low discount rates will still have orders of magnitude impacts on increasing the value of the social cost of carbon.
Right now MyPillow, is BOGO. Use promo code “JDR” at checkout for maximum discounts and Ultra MAGA.
The proponents of lower discount rates seek to force the current, poorer population to spend more to cut carbon dioxide (primarily through higher energy costs) under the guise of intergenerational equity.
Estimating the social cost of carbon is susceptible to political pressure and model-gaming. The assumptions in play—about unsupportable time horizons, exaggerated emissions projections, overly high estimates of carbon dioxide’s impact on warming, and others—are all too easily corrupted, resulting in wildly varying estimations.
In fact, reasonable assumptions can push the social cost of carbon negative (which implies that a policy of subsidies for carbon dioxide emissions is the answer). However, the single input that has the most potential to overstate the social cost of carbon is understating the discount rate. The constant pressure to justify ever lower discount rates for social cost of carbon calculations is almost comical when it mistakes wealth for poverty.
Indeed, it is a strange notion of equity that says policies should take larger amounts from a group of poorer people (those alive today) to provide benefits for a richer group (those alive 100, 200, or 300 years from now) and to do so with abominable inefficiency.
Will America-First News Outlets Make it to 2023?
Things are looking grim for conservative and populist news sites.
There’s something happening behind the scenes at several popular conservative news outlets. 2021 was bad, but 2022 is proving to be disastrous for news sites that aren’t “playing ball” with the corporate media narrative. It’s being said that advertisers are cracking down, forcing some of the biggest ad networks like Google and Yahoo to pull their inventory from conservative outlets. This has had two major effects. First, it has cooled most conservative outlets from discussing “taboo” topics like Pandemic Panic Theater, voter fraud, or The Great Reset. Second, it has isolated those ad networks that aren’t playing ball.
Certain topics are anathema for most ad networks. Speaking out against vaccines or vaccine mandates is a certain path to being demonetized. Highlighting voter fraud in the 2020 and future elections is another instant advertising death penalty. Throw in truthful stories about climate change hysteria, Critical Race Theory, and the border crisis and it’s easy to understand how difficult it is for America-First news outlets to spread the facts, share conservative opinions, and still pay the bills.
Without naming names, I have been told of several news outlets who have been forced to either consolidate with larger organizations or who have backed down on covering certain topics out of fear of being “canceled” by the ad networks. I get it. This is a business for many of us and it’s not very profitable. Those of us who do this for a living are often barely squeaking by, so loss of additional revenue can often mean being forced to make cuts. That means not being able to cover the topics properly. Its a Catch-22: Tell the truth and lose the money necessary to keep telling the truth, or avoid the truth and make enough money to survive. Those who have chosen survival simply aren’t able to spread the truth properly.
We will never avoid the truth. The Lord will provide if it is His will. Our job is simply to share the facts, spread the Gospel, and educate as many Americans as possible while exposing the forces of evil.
To those who have the means, we ask that you please donate. We have options available now, but there is no telling when those options will cancel us. We just launched a new GiveSendGo page. We also have our GivingFuel page. There have been many who have been canceled by PayPal, but for now it’s still an option. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to get the truth to the masses. We’ve had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Thank you, and God Bless!