Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”

[E]ssentially, the government is now incorporating newer climate models that capture the future damage from sea-level rise more explicitly. Those models also project that agriculture will suffer more heavily in a hotter world. So, in its central estimate, the federal government now assumes a ton of carbon-dioxide emitted in 2013 does roughly $36 in damage, rather than its previous estimate of $22, with the value rising each year.

Meanwhile, new data also suggests increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might actually be beneficial, not damaging.

Shouldn’t the EPA and the Obama administration get their heads out of the sand?

Share

4 comments

  • Publius 2

    At the risk of stating the obvious, what the Obama administration wants has nothing to do with actual changes in climate — elusive and illusory as they might be. They want to raise taxes to fund their various activities, and they want to exercise control over every aspect of life. Whether CO2 is harmful or beneficial makes no difference. You are dealing with a bunch of radicals who have been telling us their goals all along: the “fundamental transformation of America” — into a socialist state with them in charge and us defenseless. So, let us not ponder why they are ignoring the growing body of evidence that 1) human activity has nearly nothing to do with climate change, 2) the planet is not warming appreciably, 3) CO2 buildup, though hazardous for some types of marine life, might be beneficial to agriculture, and 4) by far the greater danger to humanity is another ice age.

  • Joe

    Tax grab all the way!, 84 trillion in unfunded obligations, this money has to come from somewhere, it was never about climat, only the illusion that it was getting warmer, every third story in the media was about global warming for almost two decades!

  • The sand isn’t where they have their heads.

  • John M. Egan

    Blair, you’ve got that right!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *