I read today that the EU is using an estimate of US$68 per tonne of CO2 emissions for the purported cost of the damages done by CO2. This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon”.
It made me wonder—using this estimate, what is the overall total estimated damage done by humans from emitting CO2?
The answer is $97 TRILLION dollars since 1950.
YIKES! That’s about five times the 2020 US Gross Domestic Product (the value of everything produced in the US during that year).
So I thought I’d take a look at the various largest weather-related disasters. I got the big-disaster data from Wikipedia here and arranged it by type of disaster. All values are in 2020 dollars, that is to say, they’re adjusted for inflation. Here is the result.
| DAMAGE (TRILLIONS) | DISASTER |
| DROUGHTS | |
| $0.116 | 1988–89 North American drought |
| $0.060 | 2012–13 North American drought |
| $0.032 | 1980 United States heat wave |
| $0.003 | 2017 Montana wildfires |
| $0.21 | TOTAL DROUGHTS |
| EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS | |
| $0.028 | Cyclones Lothar and Martin |
| $0.031 | Cyclones Daria, Vivian, and Wiebke |
| $0.013 | Cyclone Kyrill |
| $0.007 | Cyclone Xynthia |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Klaus |
| $0.008 | Cyclone Gudrun |
| $0.009 | Great Storm of 1987 |
| $0.10 | TOTAL EUROPEAN WINDSTORMS |
| FLOODS | |
| $0.053 | 2011 Thailand floods |
| $0.032 | 2020 China floods |
| $0.028 | 2002 European floods |
| $0.031 | Great Flood of 1993 |
| $0.013 | 2016 Louisiana floods |
| $0.012 | June 2008 Midwest floods |
| $0.007 | 2013 Alberta floods |
| $0.003 | 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods |
| $0.18 | TOTAL FLOODS |
| HAILSTORMS | |
| $0.003 | 2017 Minneapolis hailstorm |
| $0.002 | 2017 Denver hailstorm |
| $0.001 | 2020 Calgary hailstorm |
| $0.01 | TOTAL HAILSTORMS |
| SEVERE STORMS | |
| $0.003 | June 2012 North American derecho |
| $0.012 | August 2020 Midwest derecho |
| $0.02 | TOTAL SEVERE STORMS |
| TORNADOES | |
| $0.012 | 2011 Super Outbreak |
| $0.006 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2003 |
| $0.003 | 2011 Joplin tornado |
| $0.003 | Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019 |
| $0.002 | Tornado outbreak of March 6–7, 2017 |
| $0.03 | TOTAL TORNADOES |
| TROPICAL CYCLONES | |
| $0.167 | Hurricane Katrina |
| $0.133 | Hurricane Harvey |
| $0.098 | Hurricane Maria |
| $0.079 | Hurricane Sandy |
| $0.069 | Hurricane Irma |
| $0.050 | Hurricane Ida |
| $0.046 | Hurricane Ike |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Wilma |
| $0.051 | Hurricane Andrew |
| $0.036 | Hurricane Ivan |
| $0.026 | Hurricane Michael |
| $0.019 | Hurricane Laura |
| $0.025 | Hurricane Rita |
| $0.024 | Hurricane Charley |
| $0.016 | Hurricane Matthew |
| $0.017 | Hurricane Irene |
| $0.014 | Cyclone Amphan |
| $0.016 | Cyclone Nargis |
| $0.012 | Typhoon Fitow |
| $0.019 | Typhoon Mireille |
| $0.014 | Hurricane Frances |
| $0.020 | Hurricane Hugo |
| $0.015 | Hurricane Georges |
| $0.013 | Typhoon Songda |
| $0.013 | Tropical Storm Allison |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Gustav |
| $0.011 | Hurricane Jeanne |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Eta |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Sally |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Rammasun |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Floyd |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Morakot |
| $0.010 | Hurricane Mitch |
| $0.009 | Typhoon Prapiroon |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Isabel |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Dorian |
| $0.008 | Typhoon Herb |
| $0.005 | Tropical Storm Imelda |
| $0.008 | Hurricane Opal |
| $0.005 | Typhoon Haiyan |
| $0.006 | Cyclone Gonu |
| $0.005 | Hurricane Manuel |
| $0.004 | Cyclone Yasi |
| $0.006 | Hurricane Iniki |
| $0.007 | Hurricane Gilbert |
| $0.002 | Cyclone Winston |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Bopha |
| $0.002 | Typhoon Ketsana |
| $0.005 | Cyclone Tracy |
| $1.18 | TOTAL TROPICAL CYCLONES |
| WINTER STORMS | |
| $0.020 | February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm |
| $0.010 | 1993 Storm of the Century |
| $0.002 | 2011 Groundhog Day blizzard |
| $0.03 | TOTAL WINTER STORMS |
| WILDFIRES | |
| $0.072 | 2019–20 Australian bushfire season |
| $0.025 | 2018 California wildfires |
| $0.016 | October 2017 Northern California wildfires |
| $0.010 | 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire |
| $0.008 | Black Saturday bushfires |
| $0.002 | Cedar Fire |
| $0.001 | 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires |
| $0.001 | 2011 Slave Lake wildfire |
| $0.14 | TOTAL WILDFIRES |
| $1.89 | OVERALL TOTAL ($ trillion) |
Hmmm … no matter how you slice it, that’s less than two trillion dollars …
Now, to be sure, there must be a variety of smaller disasters that didn’t make the list. So let’s be conservative, and call the disaster total four times that, or $8 trillion dollars.
To check that value, I looked at the EMDAT Disaster Database. It contains no less than 11,654 detailed records of flood, wildfire, drought, storm, and extreme temperature disasters since 1950. The smallest of these had damages of $4.6 million dollars ($0.0000046 trillion). So it’s catching even very small disasters.
In 2020 dollars, the EMDAT database says that the total cost of those disasters since 1950 is about $10 trillion dollars.
So let us make the obviously incorrect and untenable assumption that 100% of those disaster costs are ascribable to the evil influence of CO2. It’s obviously not true by an order of magnitude or more, but let’s assume that each and every disaster is all 100% from CO2 for the purposes of discussion.
And given even that incorrect and wildly exaggerated assumption, the obvious question is … where is the other $87 trillion dollars of purported CO2 damages from weather-related disasters since 1950?
And it gets much worse if we don’t assume that 100% of the responsibility is due to CO2. Suppose we say (still an exaggeration) that 10% of the responsibility comes from CO2. That would mean that we are missing, not $87 trillion in disasters, but $960 trillion in disasters …
(Let me say that this kind of error, of just picking a random goal like “Net-Zero 2050” or just calculating a value for something like the “Social Cost of Carbon” and not testing the result for reasonableness against real-world data, is far too common in the world of climate “science”. I discuss this issue about “Net-Zero 2050” in my post “Bright Green Impossibilities“.)
And to repeat … where are the missing $87 trillion dollars in damages purportedly caused by so-called “climate disasters”?
My best to all,
w.
AS ALWAYS: I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
I would suggest that a fair amount can be figured in damage to the economy. If you calculate all the failed companies that were paid for or bailed out by tax dollars, the increased cost of anything with an engine to cover emissions standards, the inefficiencies of refineries because you can’t build new ones due to environmental policy, etc. etc, you may find the total cost to the economy and drain on wealth will eat up a chunk of that missing $87 trillion.
The disaster is there alright – between all of them’s ears
Willis
I thought the damages included future damages, and damages included stuff like economically valuing impacts to humans and the environment.
The estimate of SCC is based on estimate upon estimate.
Using Dhaka as an example.
Say – Dhaka has 15m people of which 5m are impacted by flooding.
In 2100 it is estimated that the population of Dhaka to be 45m and their economic wealth doubles, and the area of the city subject to extra flooding doubles.
It would mean the level of impacts or forever suffering grows by a factor of 12. ( it is automatically assumed the extra rich people will move to the flood zones)
It is my understanding that SCC includes all these future exaggerated damages/impacts/sufferings.
Just including ANY of their “estimated” future “damages” is nonsense, because it is all baseless speculation based on the same “models” that have spectacularly failed to reflect reality for three decades, yet they assume they will suddenly be “right” THIS time.
Nice analysis, WE. I just looked up the SCC estimates for US. Under Trump, a maximum of $7. Under Biden, a minimum of $51. Now that’s real Bidenflation.
Rud
I think any real assessment of the total past, present and future, “impacts” of fossil fuel usage on all humanity and the environment will clearly see that SCC is negative
True. But even under Trump, EPA only counted costs, not benefits.
Incredible. Trump could not be everywhere overseeing everything, unfortunately.
Why is “Biden” missing from the list of disasters?
Probably because Biden is not done wasting taxpayer money on the Green New Deal, so any figure used would only be a partial figure. I guess it could be figured in as “to date” damages.
Great example, Rud. Thanks.
w.
What about the Social Benefit of Carbon?
Consider, direct impact on, Life expectancy, infant mortality, health in general, education, and womens rights, for energy exporting countries such as Norway and indirect impacts on everyone else.
We know, for SURE, that the social benefit must be more than people pay for it….or they wouldn’t buy….
1000 liters of gasoline produces about 2300 Kg of CO2, or just over a ton. Where I live, 1000 liters of gasoline is about $1500, and already includes $30/ton carbon tax. So the social benefit of CO2 to me, must be more than $1500/ton for transportation purposes.
And one must also offset the costs of climate disasters that did not happen thanks to CO2.
The utter absurdity of this accounting is hurting my brain.
So basically, they are claiming that everything bad that has happened since 1950 was caused by CO2.
Everything about the claims has its own inflation – it’s continually worse than we thought
Willis:
You’re forgetting the valuation for Greta’s stolen childhood, which I guess accounts for most of that missing $87 trillion. On the other hand, some people think Greta’s childhood is the disaster.
There is a specific definition of the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC). It does not refer to past damages as you have stated:
“I read today that the EU is using an estimate of US$68 per tonne of CO2 emissions for the purported cost of the damages done by CO2. This is known by a Newspeak term as the “Social Cost Of Carbon”.”
The SCC refers to future NET damages (costs less benefits) resulting from each additional ton of CO2 emitted. The future damages/bebefits are discounted to net present value using a suitable discount rate.
Of course there is huge uncerainty in the calculations such as the discount rate used, equilibrium climate sensitivity, population growth/decline, etc. The uncertainty is so great that the calculated SCC has little value.
Thanks, Alasdair. A few problems with that. First, we’ve been emitting CO2 for a couple hundred years. And even looking at the figures from 1950 onwards, much of the purported damage must have already occurred.
Second, they are claiming over and over that current and past disasters were the result in some degree of CO2 … so they simply cannot be figuring just future damages.
Third, according to the bizarre BERN carbon cycle model, some 14% of the emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere FOREVER … and given that ridiculous claim, figuring the present value of thousands of years of imaginary future damages is hardly possible.
Fourth, if we’re just figuring damages from future events, then emissions ten years ago will have a greater effect than emissions today or ten years from now … which means that there is no “social cost of carbon” because it would change over time.
Fifth, there’s no agreed-upon time span for calculating the costs … from now until 2100? 1850 to 2200? 2300?
Sixth, even the bizarre Bern carbon cycle model shows that within 15 years, half an emitted pulse of CO2 has been sequestered … so that means we would see half the damages within that time.
And that all of that means that we could cut my numbers in half, or even a quarter … but we’re still missing tens of trillions of dollars of damages that should have occurred already but haven’t.
The whole thing is a clusterfark in my opinion … it’s only half of a proper cost/benefit analysis.
My best to you,
w.
Hello Willis. I believe that the main reason for estimating the current value of future CO2 damages for each additional ton of carbon emitted is to assist in estimating the amount that should be spent on not emitting (or removing) that additional ton. And yes, the SCC changes over time which means the value of avoiding or removing additional units of CO2 changes.
Of course removing future CO2 emissions only gets us to current levels. It seems some form of carbon removal and sequestering will be necessary.
As for costs associated with past emissions, these are sunk costs and don’t affect the costs of future emissions. (ref. sunk cost fallacy).
None of this reflects on my perception of the current state of climate science.
Regards,Al
Thanks as always, Al. I’m an accountant, well aware of the sunk cost fallacy … I’m just trying to figure if their estimate of sunk costs has any relationship with reality.
TL;DR Answer: No.
w.
Check your net cost/benefit assumption. At EPA, only SCC costs, no benefits. Just double checked.
I just checked the Congressional Research Service report of June 7, 2021 on the SC of greenhouse gases. The SCC calculation includes reduced heating cost and net changes in agricultural productivity.
Also, the three main Integrated Assesment Models for SCC calculation include both benefits and costs.
If the models truly included all of the huge benefits the world has gotten from fossil fuels and concrete, the main sources of CO2, the results would be so far into the benefits side that it would be laughable. I wrote about this in a post called “The Social Benefit Of Carbon“.
They’re running a scam, putting some tiny amount of benefits in so they can claim they’re doing a proper cost/benefit analysis.
w.
This highlights my statement that there is no standard definition of the SCC.
From Alastair’s source, I find:
The underlying assumptions in this are, first, that it is a COST and can never be a BENEFIT.
The second and much more pernicious assumption is that they are divorcing the CO2 analysis from all the benefits inherent in the activity that is producing the CO2 in the first place.
It’s like analyzing the social cost of sweating while exercising. In their method, we first divorce the sweating from the exercise, and we analyze sweating on its own.
On the benefits side, sweat cools you off. On the costs side, it gets things all wet, stains your clothes, is aromatic, and makes your hands slippery.
Net of all of that would be some kind of “Social Cost Of Sweat”, which is obviously negative. And from that we conclude it’s a bad thing, and we should reduce our sweat as much as possible …
But it’s only negative because they’re not considering the obvious benefits of the exercise that produced the sweat—better health, more strength, increased endurance, a greater sense of well-being, and the like.
w.
With apologies to Will Rogers:
Admiral Nimitz made a similar observation in response to Japanese claims of sinking multiple US carriers:
Thanks Willis. I always enjoy your lateral thinking take on “factchecking”. As an engineer involved for many years in electricity supply issues I have frequently had to deal with regulatory questions on the economist’s concept of “social cost of carbon (SCC)”. it seems to me that this number is far too elastic to inform any energy policy or planning.
I have seen proposed SCC estimates ranging from -$50 to +$400. Considering the well documented benefits of a mildly warmer environment and promotion of floral growth, I think it plausible that SCC has a net negative value. In other words by the same logic behind carbon pricing or taxation, we should receive carbon credits for burning fossil fuels 🙂
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So CO2 is not responsible for any environmental disasters. On the other hand CO2 has enabled life as we know it on this planet. That has got to be worth something,
Not to mention the social benefits of emitting CO2…
Chicken Little says that the Sky is Falling and that it will cost us $97 Trillion dollars to fix it up in the Virtual World.
A suggestion. Let’s use virtual dollars to fix virtual damage. AOC dollars, for example.
All weather related disasters have plummeted since the early 20th century- https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
Willis, I’ll bet that the fruitcakes pushing unlimited disasters and inflated social cost of carbon never saw you coming! Prozac futures are going through the roof!
Only 4 days to go before BBC One screens The Trick and nothing from WUWT.
Phil Jones will be declared a hero after being hounded by climate change deniers for 12 years.
FFS wake up!
Its similar to the fossil fuel subsidy calculation.
In the subsidy studies, the largest “subsidies” are the difference between actual carbon taxes and whatever the study team thought they SHOULD have been, and depreciation of assets.
The largest part of the “cost of carbon” is what they think those disasters SHOULD have cost.
“but $960 trillion in disasters …”
Should be mi$$ing (97-1) = $96 trillion in disasters.
Another way to put it is that we’re missing (96/97)*100 = 99.0% of the damage purportedly caused by CO2 since 1950.
We know where it’s gone, don’t we. It ran off with Trenberth’s missing heat.
It’s so nice, isn’t it, when a new insight explains data that’s been sitting neglected and lonely in the literature. You’re welcome, Ken.
Hey, Pat, good to hear from you. Guess I wasn’t clear.
If CO2 is only 10% the cause of the disasters, how much in the way of disasters would it take for the 10% CO2 share to be $96 trillion?
Best to you,
w.
I taught undergraduate and graduate statistics for about thirty years. I would tell my students that if you still thought that the human contribution was significant and that CO2 was the enemy then do your part and stop exhaling. Didn’t have any takers but I think some of these alarmist should follow my advice.
Ah, thanks, Willis. I misunderstood your point.
Sorry I missed contacting you out Bodega Way back a few months.The Spud Point sea squirts were doing well, though.
Swing by any time, you’re always welcome.
w.
Even though you probably can’t show the governments pays for much of those disaster costs, ten percent is not to much lower than most charities deliver.
The actually issue should be where does all that carbon tax their citizens pay go?
Seems kind of high prices for indulgences for those exhaling and using energy. Those carbon taxes are likely part of a pyramid scheme.
Thanks WE for all your work.
“And given even that incorrect and wildly exaggerated assumption, the obvious question is … where is the other $87 trillion dollars of purported CO2 damages from weather-related disasters since 1950?”
A large error could be in thinking that the only damage from CO2 is disasters. You really need to find out what their definition is.
Thanks, Dean. You’ve put your finger on a huge problem with the entire issue of pricing what are called “externalities” … just what is in and what is out? I’ve written before about how someone counted the cost of fixing potholes in the road as an external subsidy to fossil fuels … hang on … OK, here it is, “Potholes In Their Arguments“.
This is the reason why anyone can come up with a “Social Cost Of Carbon” of any value. You could count, for example, the cost of replacing the entire fossil-fuel energy sources with renewables. Trillions of dollars. You could claim that increased warming will drive crop yields down. Hasn’t happened, no indications that it will, but you could count it.
There is NO agreed-upon definition as ti what to include and what to exclude. And that runs into Willis’s First Rule Of Climate, which states:
So since everything is connected, anything can be counted—imaginary increases in sea level rise, fantasized increases in hurricanes, poleward migration of insects, the field is wide open, the possibilities are endless.
And as a result … the results are meaningless.
Mostly what I wanted to do in this analysis was to show just how wildly, fantastically out of proportion their claims are.
Regards,
w.
One could likewise claim that increased CO2 will drive crop yields up, which will force more processing of harvested foods, which costs the processors more, and decreased prices for the foods, which is lost income for the farmers. Add all of that cost into the total. Just ignore any increase in overall profits, but make sure to include extra losses from overproduction.
Definition of “social cost of carbon”
Willis has some form on this. See https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ where he works out:
“As Figure 6 shows, the benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.”
(Note- seems the pictures there don’t show, may need to refer to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/ to get the pictures.)
Thus even with the !diots claiming that our CO2 emissions have cost us $97T since 1950, we’ve gained around 10 times that from the use of that energy.
From Willis’ calculations above, though, looks like the actual SCC is an order of magnitude less than the EU estimate, so the cost/benefit ratio for using those fossil fuels gets even better. Apart from that, of course, there’s the slight problem that without that cheap energy we couldn’t feed the population we have.
$97 TRILLION dollars since 1950!! What’s the value of the estimated 10% – 15% of increases in C3 crop yields (rice, wheat, potatoes…) over the past half century or so?