Welcome to my curation site for the emerging science of sustainability.
Here you will find an array of stories, examples, relevant cautionary tales, and data related to our hunt for a more sustainable economy with a reduced ecological footprint. While my students, colleagues and I are interested in all aspects of sustainability, these pages have an historc emphasis on:
- human population growth rates/demography
- product design/construction, especially:
- triple bottomline
- life cycle analyses (LCA)
- sustainable supply chains
- carbon footprints (especially carbon "finprints" of seafood)
- food production/distribution systems
- energy production/storage systems, especially:
- dams and flow diversions
- wind turbines
- tidal power
- solar panel efficiency/material advances
- fuel cell design/material advances
- general building design/construction, especially:
- green roof/wall construction and plant palletes
- lighting systems
- elegant design
- redevelopment/reuse
- urban planning
- role of mobile technology in fostering sustainability
- elegant and effective communication
Thanks for visiting. Please enjoy and let me know if I can answer any questions or be of any other help.
The social cost of carbon (SCC) or the economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions—which the United States uses to guide energy regulations and, potentially, future mitigation policies—is $37 per ton according to a recent U.S. government study or, according to a new study by Stanford researchers published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, six times that value.
The Stanford scientists say the current pricing models fail to reflect all the economic damage each ton of CO2 causes and that a higher value on that damage could change policy.
“If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures will pass a cost-benefit analysis,” said study co-author Delavane Diaz. “Because carbon emissions are so harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile.”
“For 20 years now, the models have assumed that climate change can't affect the basic growth rate of the economy,” said study coauthor Frances Moore. “But a number of new studies suggest this may not be true. If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon.”
But William Pizer, a faculty fellow at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions who has worked on andrecommended regular updating of the SCC estimate, questioned the methodology of the Stanford analysis, pointing out that it relied on the impact on national economies of short-term temperature spikes rather than on long-term trends that might reveal permanent economic reductions.
“To me, it just seems like it has to be an overestimate,” Pizer said of the Stanford result of $220 (subscription required). “I think it's great they're doing this,” he added. “I just think this is another data point that someone needs to weigh as they're trying to figure out what the right social cost of carbon is. But this isn't like a definitive new answer.”