3 ms·

I saw some numbers about 30x and 10 years, but yeah it's definitely an externality that should be taxed. But if we have two situations (A) where 1 tonne of fos

I saw some numbers about 30x and 10 years, but yeah it's definitely an externality that should be taxed. But if we have two situations (A) where 1 tonne of fossil Co2 is added to the atmosphere, from e.g fossil fuel and (B) where 1 tonne of renewable methane is added, from e.g cows, it doesn't feel obvious to me how to compare them. (A) will increase the Co2 PPM / have a GH effect for centuries, if not thousands of years. So on any human timescale it's essentially permanent. This has a pretty clear price in many tax frameworks. (B) will have a 30x GH effect for 10 years. What's the cost of externality (B) compared to (A)?

Retric 2y ago
You’re likely thinking of Methan’s global warming equivalent over 100 years which is 27-34. (34) https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/gwp-star-better-way-measuring-methane-and-how-it-impacts-global-temperatures#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20used%20metric,per%20molecule%20compared%20to%20CO2 https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/gwp-star-better-way-mea.... (27-30) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... As to how you weigh each it’s worth remembering that climate change often causes harm due existing infrastructure being ill suited to the new situation. 1m higher sea level rise 10,000 years ago would be irrelevant to us today because people would have built buildings based on the way things where. 1m sea rise in the future therefore is problematic because it renders infrastructure useless not because what the final sea level ends up being. Obviously some impacts are inherently harmful, but many things can be adapted to.