The US federal government is supposed to conduct cost / benefit analyses of proposed programs to establish their cost effectiveness. In practice, the costs are often grossly underestimated and the benefits grossly overestimated.
Much has been written about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is shorthand for the social cost of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. SCC is a computer model generated estimate of the potential future societal damage which might be caused by continued CO2 emissions, typically through 2100. SCC, as it has been practiced by our government and others is an extremely malleable estimate. Pick a computer model, pick an estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2, pick an estimate of climate feedbacks, pick an estimated discount rate, push the button and “viola!”, there’s your estimate of the SCC. Current SCC estimates range from $0 up to $5500 per ton of CO2. The higher estimates can be used to justify almost any CO2 emissions reduction program.
While a search of the term “social cost of carbon” produces more than 19 million “hits’, a search of the term “social benefit of carbon” produces “crickets”. It would appear that the benefits portion of the government cost / benefit analysis is “missing in action”. However, the benefits are real, current and documented, while the costs are uncertain, future and computer model projected.
The most dramatic benefit is global greening, which has been documented by NASA and NOAA satellites. Studies attribute ~70% of the measured greening to the availability of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 not only acts as a fertilizer, but also increases the efficiency with which plants and trees use available moisture, This has manifested in a decrease in the global desert area as plants and trees have advanced across the desert perimeters.
The availability of increased CO2 has also contributed to growing crop yields for a large number of plant species, including many of the cereal crops essential to the food chain. These crops also use available moisture more efficiently, reducing the need for crop irrigation. The increased CO2 also contributes to the growth of the grasses which feed ruminant animals including domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats as well as wild ruminant animals including deer and antelope.
Crop science suggests that current atmospheric CO2 levels are still well below the ideal levels for plant growth. The CO2 levels maintained in commercial greenhouses are approximately 5 times the current atmospheric level. It appears that many crops would continue to benefit from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, though the effects would not be constant or universal.
Most government focus has been on the potential future costs of increased atmospheric CO2, in support of the climate “crisis” narrative and climate policies intended to reduce, halt and reverse the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, increased atmospheric CO2 has contributed to substantial societal benefits which should be recognized and valued. Reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reduce those benefits and increase the strains on global food production.
Originally published here.
The News media has been untruthful about climate change for 40 years!
Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
As you may know, the key figures perpetuating these lies are all the familiar suspects. Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, and now Jane Goodall, are advocating for a drastic reduction in the world's population by 2030. I know that sounds extreme, but please watch this video before it’s taken down. https://youtube.com/watch?v=MFV0QVO2T3U or https://cctruth.org/jane_goodall _remove_people.mp4
Science is never settled! Climate Change is about fear mongering and removing people from the earth. https://x.com/tomanelson/sta/TomANelson/status/1740356736643400074 Podcast with Tom Nelson who has 15,000 followers for the college textbook we published for environmental science.
Lawsuit https://cctruth.org/complaint%20filed.pdf and injunction https://cctruth.org/injunction%20_filed.pdf filed against Oregon State University for refusing to choose Dave White to finish his PhD (22 credits) and teach the 2nd edition textbook.
Three recent Supreme Court rulings in it.
1. The EPA cant regulate Greenhouse gases
2. Affirmative action and DEI are illegal
3. All courts must be Article three of the US constitution courts.
The book they are teaching is not an environmental science textbook.
On 10/25/24 we filed 1-24-CV-1300-MC_COMPLAINT_FOR_BIAS_AND_JUDICIAL_ERROR.pdf in the case.
Now docket 24-6787 in the 9th circuit court
Everybody knows that 97% of the world’s scientists agree with the IPCC that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, right? Let’s take a look. The 97% consensus figure was derived from three hundred and thirty manuscripts published between 2009 and 2012 which were pro the false agenda that were cherry-picked for review by the IPCC. Excluded from the review and survey of scientists were more than seven hundred manuscripts written by scientists who presented statistics and conclusions different from those desired. That reduces agreement from 97% to 33%. If IPCC fails this basic test of statistical sampling, how can we rely on what they are telling us about climate change? http://Cctruth.org part of chapter 13 in the textbooks.
https://cctruth.org