Noah Kaufman
@noahqkaufman.bsky.social
Climate economist. Opinions are my own.
No I didn't know anything about that. I've just read both of their work, and Gates' writings have struck me as pretty rigorous, and Lomberg's the opposite.
November 3, 2025 at 6:24 PM
No I didn't know anything about that. I've just read both of their work, and Gates' writings have struck me as pretty rigorous, and Lomberg's the opposite.
I think this recommendation was in that NAS study on SCC also.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
August 14, 2025 at 1:46 AM
I think this recommendation was in that NAS study on SCC also.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
Reasonable people can disagree with all this. But I’m still hoping we take advantage of this dark moment in the wilderness to have some worthwhile and overdue conversations like this one. /end
August 13, 2025 at 3:28 PM
Reasonable people can disagree with all this. But I’m still hoping we take advantage of this dark moment in the wilderness to have some worthwhile and overdue conversations like this one. /end
Of course, these aren't new insights at all. Scholars like Martin Weitzman made similar SCC critiques decades ago. The "alternative" I'm describing is basically what the IPCC is designed to do.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
August 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Of course, these aren't new insights at all. Scholars like Martin Weitzman made similar SCC critiques decades ago. The "alternative" I'm describing is basically what the IPCC is designed to do.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
So, I’ve come to realize that the situation is almost exactly the opposite of the instinctual economist response. Real-world SCC estimates convey roughly nothing to policymakers, whereas an alternative approach could provide at least something useful.
August 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
So, I’ve come to realize that the situation is almost exactly the opposite of the instinctual economist response. Real-world SCC estimates convey roughly nothing to policymakers, whereas an alternative approach could provide at least something useful.
On the 2nd assumption: if we pull together a group of leading experts across relevant disciplines with the task of assessing climate risks and providing a science-based judgments on climate policy stringency, they will do better than an arbitrarily-picked target.
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
On the 2nd assumption: if we pull together a group of leading experts across relevant disciplines with the task of assessing climate risks and providing a science-based judgments on climate policy stringency, they will do better than an arbitrarily-picked target.
I explain in my recent article that estimating SCCs entails making methodological choices that are obviously wrong, but necessary to generate specific numbers (or ranges). That process produces results that have no coherent interpretation. www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...
The Social Cost of Carbon Is Gone — and That May Be Good News for Future US Climate Policy - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
I explain in my recent article that estimating SCCs entails making methodological choices that are obviously wrong, but necessary to generate specific numbers (or ranges). That process produces results that have no coherent interpretation. www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...
But I don't think either assumption is true.
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
But I don't think either assumption is true.
If these two assumptions were true, then Sunstein’s argument follows directly: the SCC provides policymakers with *some* valuable info, and something is better than nothing.
August 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
If these two assumptions were true, then Sunstein’s argument follows directly: the SCC provides policymakers with *some* valuable info, and something is better than nothing.
Second, it assumes that the alternative to SCC approach is to discard the rich information scholars have developed on climate effects, damages, emissions pathways, intergenerational transfers, etc. And to instead pick arbitrary numbers (that implicitly instead of explicitly value CO2).
August 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Second, it assumes that the alternative to SCC approach is to discard the rich information scholars have developed on climate effects, damages, emissions pathways, intergenerational transfers, etc. And to instead pick arbitrary numbers (that implicitly instead of explicitly value CO2).
First, it assumes that SCC estimates convey *some* useful info to policymakers about climate policy stringency. So, they are estimating something coherent (like an uncertain most likely estimate, or a lower bound estimate, or even a bad estimate with meaningful error bars).
August 13, 2025 at 3:24 PM
First, it assumes that SCC estimates convey *some* useful info to policymakers about climate policy stringency. So, they are estimating something coherent (like an uncertain most likely estimate, or a lower bound estimate, or even a bad estimate with meaningful error bars).
He's giving the instinctual response of economists to SCC critiques, and I get it. I used to say it myself. But I’ve come to realize that its validity rests on 2 problematic assumptions.
August 13, 2025 at 3:24 PM
He's giving the instinctual response of economists to SCC critiques, and I get it. I used to say it myself. But I’ve come to realize that its validity rests on 2 problematic assumptions.
I'm a fan of both, so unsurprisingly it’s a great conversation.
Sunstein brushes aside the SCC critique. He says the alternative is to give policymakers no info on climate policy stringency, i.e., it’s either we stick with the SCC or we fly blind [I’m paraphrasing]
Sunstein brushes aside the SCC critique. He says the alternative is to give policymakers no info on climate policy stringency, i.e., it’s either we stick with the SCC or we fly blind [I’m paraphrasing]
August 13, 2025 at 3:23 PM
I'm a fan of both, so unsurprisingly it’s a great conversation.
Sunstein brushes aside the SCC critique. He says the alternative is to give policymakers no info on climate policy stringency, i.e., it’s either we stick with the SCC or we fly blind [I’m paraphrasing]
Sunstein brushes aside the SCC critique. He says the alternative is to give policymakers no info on climate policy stringency, i.e., it’s either we stick with the SCC or we fly blind [I’m paraphrasing]
But I’d be really eager to hear more of your thoughts on this
August 6, 2025 at 11:44 PM
But I’d be really eager to hear more of your thoughts on this
Argh I’m sorry Paul I thought I wrote it to make it clear that you are opposed to the approach described in that paragraph rather than the use of the SCC more broadly. Just let me how to tweak further.
August 6, 2025 at 11:39 PM
Argh I’m sorry Paul I thought I wrote it to make it clear that you are opposed to the approach described in that paragraph rather than the use of the SCC more broadly. Just let me how to tweak further.
In other words I don’t find the lack of a good alternative to be a compelling justification for claiming we can do something that we cannot
August 6, 2025 at 11:35 PM
In other words I don’t find the lack of a good alternative to be a compelling justification for claiming we can do something that we cannot
Thanks Severin. I’m sure you’re right that there are worse ways to do regulatory analysis. But I think these two issues are separable: 1) more transparency about our inability to estimate meaningful SCCs; 2) what to do instead.
August 6, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Thanks Severin. I’m sure you’re right that there are worse ways to do regulatory analysis. But I think these two issues are separable: 1) more transparency about our inability to estimate meaningful SCCs; 2) what to do instead.
Can you send me link to that article?
May 31, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Can you send me link to that article?
Agree.
But also you’re way too nice.
That’s not a reasonable critique of your book.
But also you’re way too nice.
That’s not a reasonable critique of your book.
May 31, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Agree.
But also you’re way too nice.
That’s not a reasonable critique of your book.
But also you’re way too nice.
That’s not a reasonable critique of your book.
I hear that first critique a lot. They like to set up a binary where the only 2 possible options are SWF optimization and politically chosen target.
May 31, 2025 at 7:00 PM
I hear that first critique a lot. They like to set up a binary where the only 2 possible options are SWF optimization and politically chosen target.