EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Incremental CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO 2 estimates

Alex Marten, Elizabeth Kopits, Charles Griffiths, Stephen Newbold () and Ann Wolverton

Climate Policy, 2015, vol. 15, issue 2, 272-298

Abstract: Benefit-cost analysis can serve as an informative input into the policy-making process, but only to the degree it characterizes the major impacts of the regulation under consideration. Recently, the US, amongst other nations, has begun to use estimates of the social cost of CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ) to develop analyses that more fully capture the climate change impacts of GHG abatement. The SC-CO 2 represents the aggregate willingness to pay to avoid the damages associated with an additional tonne of CO 2 emissions. In comparison, the social costs of non-CO 2 GHGs have received little attention from researchers and policy analysts, despite their non-negligible climate impact. This article addresses this issue by developing a set of social cost estimates for two highly prevalent non-CO 2 GHGs, methane and nitrous oxide. By extending existing integrated assessment models, it is possible to develop a set of social cost estimates for these gases that are consistent with the SC-CO 2 estimates currently in use by the US federal government. Policy relevance Within the benefit-cost analyses that inform the design of major regulations, all Federal agencies within the US Government (USG) use a set of agreed upon SC-CO 2 estimates to value the impact of CO 2 emissions changes. However, the value of changes in non-CO 2 GHG emissions has not been included in USG policy analysis to date. This article addresses that omission by developing a set of social cost estimates for two highly prevalent non-CO 2 GHGs, methane and nitrous oxide. These new estimates are designed to be compatible with the USG SC-CO 2 estimates currently in use and may therefore be directly applied to value emissions changes for these non-CO 2 gases within the benefit-cost analyses used to evaluate future policies.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2014.912981 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:272-298

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/tcpo20

DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.912981

Access Statistics for this article

Climate Policy is currently edited by Professor Michael Grubb

More articles in Climate Policy from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-20
Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:272-298