(Originally written to be submitted to Nature, which rejected it, edited for the substack. Versions were also sent to the EPA and the authors of Rennert.) A recent Nature article, Rennert et al. 2022, estimates the social cost of CO2 summed through 2300. The authors find a total cost of $185 per ton of CO
It's astonishing that they only consider deaths from heat, ignoring deaths from cold. Everything I have read says cold kills 10-20 times as many people as heat. The same for the distribution of temperature changes, rising more in winter than summer.
I used to have a subscription to nature, but dropped it about 10 years ago, tired of the increasing political nature. To accept such a shoddy article, and reject such obvious refutations, makes me happy I no longer subscribe.
Nature is just one more in the sadly increasing number of journals that I used to respect but no longer do. I just hate how one-sided so many organizations publishing or writing about "Science" have become.
Thanks for posting it on your substack. I probably will never have the opportunity to actually study the topic or have an opinion, but I have faith in your humility that you are probably right that the world won't end as a fireball because I drive in a car instead of walking my kids to school. And that's cheering.
P.S. After reading that you wrote some fantasy, I bought Harald. I enjoyed it a lot, but what kind of economist fails to make the story a 3-volume set? ;-) You could have added a lot and sold more books.
"Long, however, found increases of 12%, 13%, and 14% (rice, wheat, and soybeans) from an increase to 550 ppm from the ambient concentration, which implies an increase of about 17.5% for a doubling."
Instead of 17.5 %, should it be 26.7 % (= (0.12 + 0.13 + 0.14)/3*370/(550 - 370))? I may be missing something.
"Kimball 2016, a survey of FACE (Free-air CO2 Enrichment) studies of which Long is one, found that “Yields of C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%” by increasing CO2 from 353 ppm to 550, which implies a 23% increase for a doubling."
Similarly, instead of 23 %, should it be 34.0 % (= 0.19*353/(550 - 353))?
Two points: 1. The Lancet study showing 10x more cold deaths than heat deaths in Europe. If this was factored into the Social Cost of CO2 it would go negative. 2. You are saying nothing new here! Rennert et al. are fully aware of all your rebuttals. They choose to ignore them because bang there go all their grants. They lie and they know that they lie.
As you might know from my latest (https://amzn.to/3LTtfTJ) I am in general on your side. But honestly, you didn't need to read your analysis to know what it was, any more than you would need to read Bill McKibbon's analysis of the same piece.
It's astonishing that they only consider deaths from heat, ignoring deaths from cold. Everything I have read says cold kills 10-20 times as many people as heat. The same for the distribution of temperature changes, rising more in winter than summer.
I used to have a subscription to nature, but dropped it about 10 years ago, tired of the increasing political nature. To accept such a shoddy article, and reject such obvious refutations, makes me happy I no longer subscribe.
Nature is just one more in the sadly increasing number of journals that I used to respect but no longer do. I just hate how one-sided so many organizations publishing or writing about "Science" have become.
Thanks for posting it on your substack. I probably will never have the opportunity to actually study the topic or have an opinion, but I have faith in your humility that you are probably right that the world won't end as a fireball because I drive in a car instead of walking my kids to school. And that's cheering.
P.S. After reading that you wrote some fantasy, I bought Harald. I enjoyed it a lot, but what kind of economist fails to make the story a 3-volume set? ;-) You could have added a lot and sold more books.
Thanks for writing this, David!
"Long, however, found increases of 12%, 13%, and 14% (rice, wheat, and soybeans) from an increase to 550 ppm from the ambient concentration, which implies an increase of about 17.5% for a doubling."
Instead of 17.5 %, should it be 26.7 % (= (0.12 + 0.13 + 0.14)/3*370/(550 - 370))? I may be missing something.
"Kimball 2016, a survey of FACE (Free-air CO2 Enrichment) studies of which Long is one, found that “Yields of C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%” by increasing CO2 from 353 ppm to 550, which implies a 23% increase for a doubling."
Similarly, instead of 23 %, should it be 34.0 % (= 0.19*353/(550 - 353))?
Two points: 1. The Lancet study showing 10x more cold deaths than heat deaths in Europe. If this was factored into the Social Cost of CO2 it would go negative. 2. You are saying nothing new here! Rennert et al. are fully aware of all your rebuttals. They choose to ignore them because bang there go all their grants. They lie and they know that they lie.
How do they translate mortality to a dollar figure? Do they adjust for quality life years? Do they use a single figure everywhere in the world?
I've seen multiple cost/benefit analyses during COVID which just used the common 10M per death figure, which inflates costs considerably.
As you might know from my latest (https://amzn.to/3LTtfTJ) I am in general on your side. But honestly, you didn't need to read your analysis to know what it was, any more than you would need to read Bill McKibbon's analysis of the same piece.
Did the editors of Nature give any hints as to what they felt was inadequate about the article?