5 ms·

At $200/tonne (a reasonable minimum price that we should be paying for CO2 emissions), you'd be looking at $400 million budget increase on a project with a budg

At $200/tonne (a reasonable minimum price that we should be paying for CO2 emissions), you'd be looking at $400 million budget increase on a project with a budget roughly 8.5 billion USD 7 years ago [1]. It wouldn't make or break the project. If we want people to start taking CO2 into consideration when designing projects, it needs to have a cost associated with it. Ideally that cost should be used to offset the CO2 emitted. It wouldn't solve any issue but it will incentivize solutions that use less CO2. [1] https://femern.com/finance/ https://femern.com/finance/

rootusrootus 5y ago
When it's the government doing the building, where is the money going to actually go? Are there readily available carbon capture facilities operating right now at commercial scale?
- SECProto 5y ago
  400 million would fund a lot of emissions reductions (obvious ones like improving residential/commercial efficiency with insulation, adding more renewable energy, and less obvious ones like improved grid interties, etc). CCS is not real yet (though if there was $200/t on the table, it would be more likely to come around). The real positive impact it would have though is incentivizing lower carbon development: if traditional concrete has unpriced carbon emissions, there's no incentive for a design to specify using a low carbon alternative that might cost slightly more.
xyzzyz 5y ago
$200/tonne is far above "reasonable minimum price" for CO2 emissions. Average estimate is closer to $50/tonne. At $200/tonne, you're entering "viable air capture of CO2" territory.
- Someone 5y ago
  Looking at https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/, in the EU, it’s about €80 per ton at the moment. At current exchange rates, that’s about $90.
- SECProto 5y ago
  > At $200/tonne, you're entering "viable air capture of CO2" territory. Yes. Since the issue is we've emitted too much CO2, the solutions are either to not emit it, or to remove it after emission. You set the price to whatever the actual cost is to remove it, and that lets the person do the emitting decide if it is worth it to emit, or if it would be cheaper to use an alternative. I view that as the reasonable minimum price. If we were looking to go carbon-negative to start to undo decades of harm, you would want the carbon price to be higher than the removal cost. > Average estimate is closer to $50/tonne. Where did this number come from? I've never heard it. It doesn't line up with the goals of Canada ($50 this year, targeting $170/t in 2030), and the spot price in the EU was 85 euro in December.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > Since the issue is we've emitted too much CO2, the solutions are either to not emit it, or to remove it after emission. There are more than just these two options. For example, you can capture CO2 at the emission site, which is much cheaper than doing the same after it dissipates to low concentration in the atmosphere. > If we were looking to go carbon-negative to start to undo decades of harm, you would want the carbon price to be higher than the removal cost. While preventing future bigger changes to climate might be worthwhile, I for one believe that imposing enormous burden on entire world just so that we revert to CO2 levels from, say, 1950, is simply not worth it. Say what you want about future climate “catastrophe”, but as of today, we are just fine. > Where did this number come from? I've never heard it. It doesn't line up with the goals of Canada ($50 this year, targeting $170/t in 2030) See eg. https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/IRENA_REmap_externality_methodology_2016.pdf?la=en&hash=800E574E40C1A0958049AB6764B0BEF515134859 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/... Etc. The figures you are quoting are just politicians trying to get more tax money through climatewashing, these have nothing to do with actual externalities of GHG emissions or with mitigations.
    - SECProto 5y ago
      > For example, you can capture CO2 at the emission site, which is much cheaper than doing the same after it dissipates to low concentration in the atmosphere. If this project captured the emissions at the site, then they wouldn't have to pay the hypothetical carbon fee. That would be a reasonable option for the designer to consider (along with low carbon concrete or just building it and paying whatever fee it would entail) > While preventing future bigger changes to climate might be worthwhile, I for one believe that imposing enormous burden on entire world just so that we revert to CO2 levels from, say, 1950, is simply not worth it. Say what you want about future climate “catastrophe”, but as of today, we are just fine. The climate is an inherently unstable system - we're still dealing with the effects of carbon emissions from decades ago. If we stopped all carbon emissions now, the climate wouldn't stabilize for centuries or millennia. > https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution From your source, "The current central estimate of the social cost of carbon is over $50 per ton in today's dollars. While this is the most robust and credible figure available, it does not yet include all of the widely recognized and accepted scientific and economic impacts of climate change. For that reason, many experts agree [PDF] this is far lower than the true costs of carbon pollution." > https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/IRENA_REmap_externality_methodology_2016.pdf?la=en&hash=800E574E40C1A0958049AB6764B0BEF515134859 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/... Dated literature review, relying largely on a US government document from 2013, which was itself updated in 2016 for being inaccurate The IPCC was estimating 135-5500/t in 2018, though criticism was fairly levelled that current economic models can only estimate impact of implementing moderate carbon costs. https://www.resources.org/archives/latest-ipcc-report-sounds-new-alarm-on-global-climate-policy/ https://www.resources.org/archives/latest-ipcc-report-sounds... > The figures you are quoting are just politicians trying to get more tax money through climatewashing, these have nothing to do with actual externalities of GHG emissions or with mitigations. Disagree strongly. Also, the carbon market in the EU and the climate costing in Canada - neither of them goes into general tax coffers.

rootusrootus 5y ago

When it's the government doing the building, where is the money going to actually go? Are there readily available carbon capture facilities operating right now at commercial scale?

SECProto 5y ago
400 million would fund a lot of emissions reductions (obvious ones like improving residential/commercial efficiency with insulation, adding more renewable energy, and less obvious ones like improved grid interties, etc). CCS is not real yet (though if there was $200/t on the table, it would be more likely to come around). The real positive impact it would have though is incentivizing lower carbon development: if traditional concrete has unpriced carbon emissions, there's no incentive for a design to specify using a low carbon alternative that might cost slightly more.

xyzzyz 5y ago

$200/tonne is far above "reasonable minimum price" for CO2 emissions. Average estimate is closer to $50/tonne. At $200/tonne, you're entering "viable air capture of CO2" territory.

Someone 5y ago
Looking at https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/, in the EU, it’s about €80 per ton at the moment. At current exchange rates, that’s about $90.
SECProto 5y ago
> At $200/tonne, you're entering "viable air capture of CO2" territory. Yes. Since the issue is we've emitted too much CO2, the solutions are either to not emit it, or to remove it after emission. You set the price to whatever the actual cost is to remove it, and that lets the person do the emitting decide if it is worth it to emit, or if it would be cheaper to use an alternative. I view that as the reasonable minimum price. If we were looking to go carbon-negative to start to undo decades of harm, you would want the carbon price to be higher than the removal cost. > Average estimate is closer to $50/tonne. Where did this number come from? I've never heard it. It doesn't line up with the goals of Canada ($50 this year, targeting $170/t in 2030), and the spot price in the EU was 85 euro in December.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > Since the issue is we've emitted too much CO2, the solutions are either to not emit it, or to remove it after emission. There are more than just these two options. For example, you can capture CO2 at the emission site, which is much cheaper than doing the same after it dissipates to low concentration in the atmosphere. > If we were looking to go carbon-negative to start to undo decades of harm, you would want the carbon price to be higher than the removal cost. While preventing future bigger changes to climate might be worthwhile, I for one believe that imposing enormous burden on entire world just so that we revert to CO2 levels from, say, 1950, is simply not worth it. Say what you want about future climate “catastrophe”, but as of today, we are just fine. > Where did this number come from? I've never heard it. It doesn't line up with the goals of Canada ($50 this year, targeting $170/t in 2030) See eg. https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/IRENA_REmap_externality_methodology_2016.pdf?la=en&hash=800E574E40C1A0958049AB6764B0BEF515134859 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/... Etc. The figures you are quoting are just politicians trying to get more tax money through climatewashing, these have nothing to do with actual externalities of GHG emissions or with mitigations.
  - SECProto 5y ago
    > For example, you can capture CO2 at the emission site, which is much cheaper than doing the same after it dissipates to low concentration in the atmosphere. If this project captured the emissions at the site, then they wouldn't have to pay the hypothetical carbon fee. That would be a reasonable option for the designer to consider (along with low carbon concrete or just building it and paying whatever fee it would entail) > While preventing future bigger changes to climate might be worthwhile, I for one believe that imposing enormous burden on entire world just so that we revert to CO2 levels from, say, 1950, is simply not worth it. Say what you want about future climate “catastrophe”, but as of today, we are just fine. The climate is an inherently unstable system - we're still dealing with the effects of carbon emissions from decades ago. If we stopped all carbon emissions now, the climate wouldn't stabilize for centuries or millennia. > https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution From your source, "The current central estimate of the social cost of carbon is over $50 per ton in today's dollars. While this is the most robust and credible figure available, it does not yet include all of the widely recognized and accepted scientific and economic impacts of climate change. For that reason, many experts agree [PDF] this is far lower than the true costs of carbon pollution." > https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/IRENA_REmap_externality_methodology_2016.pdf?la=en&hash=800E574E40C1A0958049AB6764B0BEF515134859 https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/REmap/Methodology/... Dated literature review, relying largely on a US government document from 2013, which was itself updated in 2016 for being inaccurate The IPCC was estimating 135-5500/t in 2018, though criticism was fairly levelled that current economic models can only estimate impact of implementing moderate carbon costs. https://www.resources.org/archives/latest-ipcc-report-sounds-new-alarm-on-global-climate-policy/ https://www.resources.org/archives/latest-ipcc-report-sounds... > The figures you are quoting are just politicians trying to get more tax money through climatewashing, these have nothing to do with actual externalities of GHG emissions or with mitigations. Disagree strongly. Also, the carbon market in the EU and the climate costing in Canada - neither of them goes into general tax coffers.