Social cost of carbon

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, typically expressed in dollars, of the economic damages associated with emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ^[1] By translating the effects of climate change into monetary terms, the SCC provides policymakers with a tool to assess the potential impacts of actions that increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is commonly used in regulatory impact analyses to inform investment decisions, cost-benefit assessments, and climate policy development. ^{[2] [3] [ obsolete source ]}

History

The concept of pricing environmental externalities was first proposed by economist Arthur Pigou in 1912, who suggested taxing activities that generate negative externalities, such as pollution. ^[4] Although Pigou's framework did not specifically address carbon dioxide emissions, it laid the intellectual foundation for the development of the Social Cost of Carbon. ^[5]

In the early 1990s, economist William Nordhaus introduced the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, one of the first Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to explicitly estimate the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions. His work helped formalize the idea that economic damages from climate change could be quantified. ^[6]

Various countries began implementing carbon pricing schemes in the 2000s, including the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in 2005 and New Zealand's ETS in 2008. Meanwhile, the UK explored IAM-based policy evaluation with the Government Economic Service Working Paper 140 in 2002. ^[7]

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the federal government must account for the monetary effects of climate change in regulatory analyses. ^{[8] [9]}

The United States formalized the Social Cost of Carbon under President Barack Obama in 2010. An Interagency Working Group (IWG) composed of 12 federal agencies developed the first U.S. government SCC estimates, drawing on outputs from three IAMs: DICE, FUND, and PAGE. ^[10] These estimates were updated in 2013 ^[11] and 2016. ^[12] In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations for improving SCC calculations. ^[13] However, Executive Order 13783 under President Donald Trump disbanded the IWG. President Joe Biden reinstated the IWG through Executive Order 13990 in 2021, directing it to update SCC estimates to reflect scientific advances.^{[ citation needed ]}

In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to again disband the IWG, ^[14] and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently announced plans to "overhaul" SCC calculations. ^[15]

Adoption

Following Nordhaus's early work, the concept of the Social Cost of Carbon gained prominence through the Stern Review (2006) and the formation of the U.S. Interagency Working Group in 2009. The SCC became a standard tool for regulatory analysis under the Obama administration. ^[16]

Use by Country

In addition to SCC estimates, many countries and regions have implemented direct carbon pricing programs or shadow valuation frameworks. The following table highlights major initiatives: ^[17]

Program	Country/Region	Launch Year	Type
EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)	European Union	2005	Cap-and-trade
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS)	New Zealand	2008	Cap-and-trade
Korea Emissions Trading Scheme (K-ETS)	South Korea	2015	Cap-and-trade
Canadian Carbon Pricing	Canada	2019	Federal carbon price with provincial systems
China National ETS	China	2021	Cap-and-trade (power sector)
German GIVE Model (Greenhouse Gas Inclusive Valuation Estimate)	Germany	2024	Shadow pricing for regulatory impact

The SCC is distinct from carbon pricing tools such as taxes or cap-and-trade systems. ^[a]

The Social Cost of Carbon or similar approaches have been adopted globally, though implementations differ:

• United States: Fluctuations under Obama ($51/ton, 3% discount rate), Trump ($1–$7/ton, focusing on domestic damages), and Biden (proposed >$190/ton, accounting for global damages at lower discount rates). ^{[18] [19]}
• Canada: Integrates SCC estimates directly into fuel pricing regulations. ^[20]
• United Kingdom and France: Apply "shadow pricing" in regulatory impact assessments, embedding a cost of carbon without a direct market price. ^{[21] [22]}
• Germany: Introduced the GIVE model in 2024 to better capture long-term uncertainties. ^{[23] [24]}
• China, New Zealand, South Korea, and others: Operate emissions trading systems (ETS) that reflect implicit or explicit carbon costs. ^[17]

Discount rates, scope of damages (global vs. domestic), and valuation methods vary substantially across 40 governments and 25 sub-governmental entities that currently employ some form of carbon pricing. ^[25]

Calculation

Basic Process

SCC calculations typically involve:

1. Projecting Future Emissions: Based on economic growth, technological change, and demographics.
2. Modeling Climate Responses: Simulating atmospheric CO₂ levels, temperature increases, sea level rise and other changes.
3. Assessing Impacts: Evaluating effects on agriculture, ^[26] health, ^[27] energy use, infrastructure, and ecosystems. ^[28]
4. Monetizing Damages: Converting impacts into monetary terms. ^{[1] [29]}
5. Discounting Future Damages: Applying a discount rate to reflect time preferences. ^{[30] [31]}

Key Factors that Influence Social Cost of Carbon ^{[32] [33]}

• Climate sensitivity (how much warming one ton of carbon causes, estimated via IAMs) ^[34]
• Economic assumptions/growth projections ^[35]
• Discount Rate Choice ^[36]
• Global vs. domestic damage scope ^{[37] [38]}
• Inclusion of non-market damages (i.e. ecosystem services) ^{[39] [40]}

Discount Rates

The discount rate affects how future damages are valued today. A simplified example: an offer to receive $100 now or $110 in a year implies a 10% simple discount rate. In climate economics:

• Low discount rate (1–2%): Future generations' welfare valued nearly equally with today's.
• High discount rate (4–5%): Present benefits are prioritized and future damages are heavily discounted. ^[41]

Discounting formula:

${\displaystyle PV={\frac {FV}{(1+r)^{t}}}}$

where PV = present value, FV = future value, r = discount rate, and t = time.

Recent literature supports declining discount rates, ^{[42] [43]} starting higher in the near-term but decreasing over time to reflect long-term uncertainty and ethical considerations. ^[41]

Equations

Risk-Neutral Damages

Captures the central tendency cost of emitting 1 additional ton of CO₂ today without accounting for catastrophic risks or risk aversion ^[44]

${\displaystyle SCC_{1}=MDR\times HDP\times TCRE\times {\frac {1}{FDR}}}$

• MDR: Marginal Damage Ratio- How much global GDP drops per degree Celsius of warming ^[45]
• HDP: Horizon Discounted GDP- Present value of global GDP over time (used to weight future damages)
• TCRE: Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions- How much global temperature increases (in degrees C) per 1,000 gigatonnes of CO₂ emitted (about 1.8 °C/1 trillion tons of carbon)
• FDR: Future Discount Rate- Applied to calculate the present value of future damages

Catastrophic Risk Premium

Adds a risk premium to account for potential catastrophic damage, uncertainty, and risk aversion ^[46]

${\displaystyle SCC_{2}=SCC_{1}+{\frac {(MCRD\times MDD)}{(1-RA\times MDD)}}\times V\times TCRE\times {\frac {1}{R}}}$

• MCRD: Marginal Catastrophe Risk Density- Change in the probability of a disaster per ton of CO₂ emitted
• MDD: Mean Disaster Damage- Expected GDP loss if a catastrophe occurs
• RA: Relative Risk Aversion- How strongly society prefers to avoid risk
• V: Value of GDP- Total or marginal economic value at risk (often equivalent to global GDP)
• R: Discount rate for catastrophic events (may differ from FDR in SCC₁)

The final SCC combines risk-neutral and risk-adjusted components. ^[33]

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)

Three principal Integrated Assessment Models - DICE, FUND, and PAGE - have historically underpinned SCC calculations. DICE emphasizes a globally-aggregated, deterministic pathway that optimizes mitigation costs against economic damages. FUND introduces more granular regional and sectoral variation, allowing for some beneficial warming effects in higher latitudes. PAGE, by contrast, is probabilistic, explicitly modeling uncertain catastrophic risks. These methodological differences can lead to dramatically different SCC values. Obama-era SCC relied on an average across multiple runs of DICE, FUND and PAGE. ^[11]

DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy) ^[47]

Optimizes emissions abatement based on cost-benefit balance, tends to produce lower SCCs because it ignores deep uncertainty and treats damage as reversible

Assumptions:

• Climate and economic systems are tightly coupled in a smooth, deterministic way
• Damages increase with the square of temperature (i.e., GDP loss = a × T²)
• Doesn't include tipping points or fat-tailed catastrophic risk

FUND (Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Distribution) ^[48]

Shows wide variation in SCC depending on who's affected and when, can understate damages dure to assumptions about adaptation and potential warming benefits

Assumptions:

• Models multiple impact categories (e.g., agriculture, health, sea level rise) by region
• Includes some adaptation responses over time
• Allows for negative damages (i.e., benefits from warming in some regions/sectors)

PAGE (Policy Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect) ^[49]

Produces higher SCC estimates with large uncertainty bands, complexity & uncertainty can make outputs difficult for policy communication

Assumptions:

• Uses Monte Carlo simulations to model thousands of futures
• Probabilistic treatment of catastrophic events and tipping points
• Damages increase sharply after certain thresholds
• Often uses declining discount rates

Tipping Points

Standard IAMs tend to assume smooth, continuous damages from warming, which may underestimate risk by ignoring climatic tipping points.

More recent models incorporate tipping elements using threshold functions or probabilistic catastrophe modules. This method accounts for the abrupt, irreversible impacts (ice sheet collapse, AMOC disruption) that occur when the climate crosses critical thresholds. Modeling studies suggest that including tipping points can double the SCC. ^[50]

Tipping Point Additions to the Social Cost of Carbon Equation

Threshold function in damage term

${\displaystyle SCC_{3}=c\times 1(T>T^{*})+SCC_{1}+SCC_{2}}$

• T² = base damage function, meaning damages increase with the square of global temperature rise (i.e. 1 °C, little damage; 2 °C, 4x damage, 3 °C, 9x damage). This represents a smooth escalation of climate harm.
• T³ adds nonlinearity to the damage function, with the idea being that once warming passes 2-3 °C, damages might accelerate even faster than T². This accounts for feedback loops without jumping straight to tipping points
• ×1(T > T*) is an indicator function that activates when temperature exceeds tipping threshold T* (e.g. 3 or 4 °C). C = added cost from a tipping point event (e.g. polar ice sheet collapse). This kicks in suddenly, making the damage function discontinuous. ^[35]

Stochastic Tipping Point Module

${\displaystyle SCC_{4}=BaseDamages+Pr(Tipping)\times ExpectedCatastrophicDamages}$

Adds a probabilistic tipping event that increases expected damages ^{[51] [52] [53] [54]}

Criticism

While the social cost of carbon is sometimes used in policymaking^{[ citation needed ]} and economic analysis, it has been subjected to criticism from economists, scientists and ethicists. These critiques fall into three broad categories: methodological uncertainty, ethical limitations, and political vulnerability.

1. Extreme sensitivity to assumptions: SCC estimates are highly sensitive to a small number of assumptions, especially the discount rate, the climate damage function, and the climate sensitivity parameter. ^[55] Philosophical choices about valuing future generations can dramatically influence SCC estimates.
2. Inadequate treatment of uncertainty and catastrophic risk: IAMs often overlook low-probability, high-impact climate events. This omission can lead to underestimating the true economic risks associated with climate change. ^[56]
3. Ethical concerns and intergenerational injustice: the SCC has been criticized for embedding utilitarian and economically rationalist ethics that may not align with broader moral values. ^{[57] [58]}
4. Political manipulation and lack of transparency: the U.S. federal government under different administrations has produced wildly divergent SCC values, ranging from $1/ton under Trump to over $15/ton under Biden (using a 2% discount rate). ^[59] This volatility undermines the credibility of SCC as a stable policy guide and suggests that it can be tailored to serve political ends rather than objective analysis. Further, some IAMs are not open-source or lack sufficient transparency, making it difficult for the public or policymakers to evaluate the quality of the estimates. ^[60]
5. Marginal logic vs. Planetary boundaries: Some scholars argue that the marginal nature of the SCC is fundamentally mismatched to the climate crisis. ^[61] The SCC estimates the cost of one additional ton of CO₂, assuming the rest of the system stays constant. In this view, carbon budgets or absolute emissions caps may be more appropriate than pricing frameworks based on marginal harm. ^{[62] [63]}

Proposed Alternatives and Emerging Directions

• Declining discount rates ^[43]
• Carbon budgets ^{[64] [65]}
• Consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounting ^[66]
• Intergenerational equity frameworks ^{[67] [68]}
• Global minimum carbon price proposals ^{[69] [70]}

Bibliography

Sources

• de Coninck, H.; Revi, A.; Babiker, M.; Bertoldi, P.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 4: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response" (PDF). Global Warming of 1.5 °C. pp. 313–443.
• Stern Review (2006) ^[71]
• Interagency Working Group SCC Reports (2010, ^[72] 2013, ^[72] 2016, ^[12] 2021 ^[73] )
• Dietz et al. (2021) on tipping points ^[50]
• Klenert et al. (2018) on equity and discounting ^{[74] [67]}
• IAM comparison studies ^[75]

See also

• Carbon pricing in Canada
• Carbon tax
• Economic analysis of climate change
• Energy law
• List of years in the environment

Notes

1. The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the economic damage from emitting one additional ton of CO₂, used in regulatory and cost-benefit analysis. Carbon pricing applies actual market costs (e.g., carbon taxes) to incentivize reductions. The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the economic damage from emitting one additional ton of CO₂, used in regulatory and cost-benefit analysis. Carbon pricing applies actual market costs (e.g., carbon taxes) to incentivize reductions.

References

1. "Social Cost of Carbon 101". Resources for the Future. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
2. Johnson, Laurie T.; Hope, Chris (2012). "The social cost of carbon in U.S. regulatory impact analyses: an introduction and critique" . Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 2 (3): 205–221. Bibcode:2012JEnSS...2..205J. doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0087-7. ISSN   2190-6483.
3. CGEP, Columbia | (27 March 2018). "The Use of Current Social Cost of Carbon Estimates in Taxes and Subsidies". Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
4. "Decades Ago, British Economist Created The Framework For A Carbon Tax". NPR. Retrieved 3 May 2025.
5. Masur, Jonathan; Posner, Eric (1 January 2015). "Toward a Pigouvian State". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 164 (1): 93.
6. "The Prize in Economic Sciences 2018 - Press release". NobelPrize.org. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
7. Clarkson, R. and K. Deyes (2002). Estimating the social cost of carbon emissions. Government Economic Service Working Paper 140. London, HM Treasury. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/SCC.pdf
8. "Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
9. "CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (2007)". Findlaw. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
10. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. (2010). Social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866. Whitehouse Council of Economic Advisors, Washington, DC, USA.
11. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (November 2013). "Technical Support Document: - Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866" (PDF). obamawhitehouse.archives.gov.
12. National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Division of Behavioral, Board on Environmental Change, & Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon. (2016). Assessment of approaches to updating the social cost of carbon: phase 1 report on a near-term update. National Academies Press.
13. National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Division of Behavioral, Board on Environmental Change, Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon. Valuing climate damages: Updating estimation of the social cost of carbon dioxide. National Academies Press; 2017 May 23.
14. "Unleashing American Energy". The White House. 21 January 2025. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
15. US EPA, OA (12 March 2025). "EPA Announces Action to Address Costly Obama, Biden "Climate" Measurements (Social Cost of Carbon)". United States Environmental Protection Agency . Retrieved 27 April 2025.
16. "Professors explain the social cost of carbon". news.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
17. World Bank. 2024. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41544
18. "What is the social cost of carbon?". Brookings. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
19. Milano, Brett. "The 'social cost of carbon'". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
20. Canada, Service (13 October 2015). "Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Estimates – Interim Updated Guidance for the Government of Canada". www.canada.ca. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
21. Burke J, Byrnes R, Fankhauser S. How to price carbon to reach net-zero emissions in the UK. Policy Report, London School of Economics, London. 2019 May.
22. Bueb J, Le Hir B, Mesqui B, Pommeret A, Margerie GD, Salin M, Quinet E, Broca OD, Chasseloup S, Combaud M, Bureau D. The Value for Climate Action. A shadow price of carbon for evaluation of investments and public policies. Report by the Commission chaired by Alain Quinet.
23. Putra, Vebri Pradinata; A., Faizal; Putri, Tama Erlanda; Wulandari, Sri; Afriza, Afriza (24 June 2024). "Analisis Konsep Dasar Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia" . Al-Mikraj: Jurnal Studi Islam dan Humaniora. 4 (2): 1862–1872. doi:10.37680/almikraj.v4i02.5470. ISSN   2745-4584.
24. Ministry, Federal Environment (19 December 2024). "2024 German Climate Adaptation Strategy- BMUV - Download". bmuv.de. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
25. "About Carbon Pricing". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
26. Tanure, Tarik Marques Do Prado; Domingues, Edson Paulo; Magalhães, Aline De Souza (2023). "The regional economic impacts of climate change on family farming and large-scale agriculture in brazil: a computable general equilibrium approach" . Climate Change Economics. 14 (3): 2350012. Bibcode:2023ClChE..1450012T. doi:10.1142/S2010007823500124. ISSN   2010-0078.
27. Bressler, R. Daniel (29 July 2021). "The mortality cost of carbon". Nature Communications. 12 (1) 4467. Bibcode:2021NatCo..12.4467B. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24487-w. ISSN   2041-1723. PMC   8322393 . PMID   34326326.
28. USGCRP (2018). Fourth National Climate Assessment (Report). U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC. pp. 1–470. Archived from the original on 23 November 2018.
29. Asturias-Schaub, Luis Rodrigo; Gil-Alana, Luis Alberiko (1 October 2023). "CO2 emissions in Latin America: a time series perspective based on fractional integration". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30 (50): 109585–109605. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-29987-4. ISSN   1614-7499. PMC   10622371 . PMID   37776424.
30. Carleton, Tamma; Greenstone, Michael (2021). "Updating the United States Government's Social Cost of Carbon". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3764255. ISSN   1556-5068. SSRN   3764255.
31. Newbold, Stephen; Griffiths, Charles; Moore, Chris; Wolverton, Ann; Kopits, Elizabeth (2010). "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple". AgEcon Search. doi:10.22004/AG.ECON.280887.
32. Tol, Richard S. J. (2024). "Database for the meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon (V2025.1)". arXiv: 2402.09125 [econ.GN].
33. "A new way to price carbon: Understanding the social cost of carbon". CEPR. 20 December 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
34. Roe, Gerard H.; Baker, Marcia B. (26 October 2007). "Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?" . Science. 318 (5850): 629–632. Bibcode:2007Sci...318..629R. doi:10.1126/science.1144735. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17962560.
35. Nordhaus, William D. (14 February 2017). "Revisiting the social cost of carbon". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (7): 1518–1523. Bibcode:2017PNAS..114.1518N. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1609244114 . PMC   5321009 . PMID   28143934.
36. Hamilton, Caroline (20 October 2023). "Growth Uncertainty, Discounting, and the Climate Beta: Implications for the Social Cost of Carbon". Resources for the Future.
37. Jafino, Bramka Arga; Walsh, Brian; Rozenberg, Julie; Hallegatte, Stephane (2020). "Revised Estimates of the Impact of Climate Change on Extreme Poverty by 2030". openknowledge.worldbank.org. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-9417. hdl:10986/34555 . Retrieved 2 May 2025.
38. Dong, Jinchi; Tol, Richard S. J.; Wang, Fangzhi (1 November 2024). "Towards a social cost of carbon with national characteristics". Economics Letters. 244 111977. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111977 . ISSN   0165-1765.
39. Rennert, Kevin; Errickson, Frank; Prest, Brian C.; Rennels, Lisa; Newell, Richard G.; Pizer, William; Kingdon, Cora; Wingenroth, Jordan; Cooke, Roger; Parthum, Bryan; Smith, David; Cromar, Kevin; Diaz, Delavane; Moore, Frances C.; Müller, Ulrich K. (2022). "Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO₂". Nature. 610 (7933): 687–692. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05224-9. ISSN   1476-4687. PMC   9605864 . PMID   36049503.
40. Howard P. Omitted damages: What’s missing from the social cost of carbon. Institute for Policy Integrity. 2014 Mar. https://costofcarbon.org/files/Omitted_Damages_Whats_Missing_From_the_Social_Cost_of_Carbon.pdf
41. Drupp M, Freeman M, Groom B, Nesje F. Discounting disentangled: an expert survey on the determinants of the long-term social discount rate. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper. 2015 May;195. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/DruppFreeman2015.pdf
42. Gollier, Christian (June 2008). "Declining Discount Rates: Economic Justifications and Implications for Long-Run Policy" (PDF). IDEI, Université Toulouse I; DIEES, Athens University of Economics and Business; DEFA, National University of Ireland Maynooth.
43. Arrow, Kenneth J.; Cropper, Maureen L.; Gollier, Christian; Groom, Ben; Heal, Geoffrey M.; Newell, Richard G.; Nordhaus, William D.; Pindyck, Robert S.; Pizer, William A.; Portney, Paul R.; Sterner, Thomas; Tol, Richard S. J.; Weitzman, Martin L. (2014). "Should Governments Use a Declining Discount Rate in Project Analysis?". Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 8 (2): 145–163. doi:10.1093/reep/reu008.
44. Hambel, Christoph; Kraft, Holger; Schwartz, Eduardo (1 July 2021). "The social cost of carbon in a non-cooperative world" . Journal of International Economics. 131 103490. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2021.103490. ISSN   0022-1996.
45. Bilal, Adrien; Känzig, Diego R. (2024), The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature (Working Paper), Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, doi:10.3386/w32450, 32450, retrieved 2 May 2025
46. Kousky, Carolyn; Kopp, Robert E.; Cooke, Roger M. (2011). "Risk Premia and the Social Cost of Carbon: A Review". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972779. hdl: 10419/48580 . ISSN   1556-5068. SSRN   1972779.
47. "DICE/RICE Models". William D. Nordhaus. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
48. Tol, David Anthoff and Richard S. J. "FUND Model". FUND Model. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
49. "PAGE-ICE Integrated Assessment Model". 16 January 2024. Archived from the original on 16 January 2024. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
50. Dietz, Simon; Rising, James; Stoerk, Thomas; Wagner, Gernot (24 August 2021). "Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (34). Bibcode:2021PNAS..11803081D. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103081118 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   8403967 . PMID   34400500.
51. Dietz, Simon; Rising, James; Stoerk, Thomas; Wagner, Gernot (24 August 2021). "Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (34): e2103081118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11803081D. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2103081118 . PMC   8403967 . PMID   34400500.
52. openmodels/META-2021, Open Modelling Group, 13 January 2025, retrieved 27 April 2025
53. Lontzek, Thomas S.; Cai, Yongyang; Judd, Kenneth L.; Lenton, Timothy M. (2015). "Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy". Nature Climate Change. 5 (5): 441–444. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..441L. doi:10.1038/nclimate2570. hdl: 10871/35041 . ISSN   1758-678X.
54. Hambel, Christoph; Kraft, Holger; Schwartz, Eduardo (1 February 2021). "Optimal carbon abatement in a stochastic equilibrium model with climate change". European Economic Review. 132 103642. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103642. ISSN   0014-2921.
55. Pearce, Rosamund (14 February 2017). "Q&A: The social cost of carbon". Carbon Brief. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
56. Weitzman, Martin L. (1 May 2014). "Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon" . American Economic Review. 104 (5): 544–546. doi:10.1257/aer.104.5.544. ISSN   0002-8282.
57. Kara (26 February 2021). "Ethics Review of Carbon Taxes". Seven Pillars Institute. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
58. CGEP, Columbia | (6 June 2023). "Discounting the Distant Future: A Critique of the EPA's Analysis of the Social Cost of Carbon". Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
59. "Improving Discounting in the Social Cost of Carbon". Resources for the Future. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
60. Skea, Jim; Shukla, Priyadarshi; Al Khourdajie, Alaa; McCollum, David (2021). "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Transparency and integrated assessment modeling" . WIREs Climate Change. 12 (5): e727. Bibcode:2021WIRCC..12E.727S. doi:10.1002/wcc.727. ISSN   1757-7799.
61. Engström, Gustav; Gars, Johan; Krishnamurthy, Chandra; Spiro, Daniel; Calel, Raphael; Lindahl, Therese; Narayanan, Badri (17 September 2020). "Carbon pricing and planetary boundaries". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 4688. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4688E. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18342-7. ISSN   2041-1723. PMC   7498463 . PMID   32943606.
62. Issues (21 August 2017). "Rethinking the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide". Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
63. "A Social Cost of Carbon Consistent with a Net-Zero Climate Goal". Roosevelt Institute. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
64. Kaufman, Noah; Barron, Alexander R.; Krawczyk, Wojciech; Marsters, Peter; McJeon, Haewon (17 August 2020). "A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices" . Nature Climate Change. 10 (11): 1010–1014. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10.1010K. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0880-3. ISSN   1758-6798. OSTI   1762485.
65. Santos, Georgina (1 September 2022). "Climate change policy and carbon pricing". Energy Policy. 168 112985. Bibcode:2022EnPol.16812985S. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112985. ISSN   0301-4215.
66. Tukker, Arnold; Pollitt, Hector; Henkemans, Maurits (8 April 2020). "Consumption-based carbon accounting: sense and sensibility". Climate Policy. 20 (sup1): S1 –S13. Bibcode:2020CliPo..20S...1T. doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1728208. hdl: 1887/3135062 . ISSN   1469-3062.
67. Klenert, David; Mattauch, Linus; Combet, Emmanuel; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Hepburn, Cameron; Rafaty, Ryan; Stern, Nicholas (2018). "Making carbon pricing work for citizens". Nature Climate Change. 8 (8): 669–677. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8..669K. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0201-2. ISSN   1758-678X.
68. van der Ploeg, Frederick; Emmerling, Johannes; Groom, Ben (10 January 2023). "The social cost of carbon with intragenerational inequality and economic uncertainty". www.cccep.ac.uk. Retrieved 3 May 2025.
69. "Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices". Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
70. floors, Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the Brookings Institution Event: Building climate cooperation: The critical role for international carbon price. "Launch of IMF Staff Climate Note: A Proposal for an International Carbon Price Floor Among Large Emitters". IMF. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
71. Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change; The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
72. Council, D. P. (2013). Technical support document:-technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis-under executive order 12866. Environmental Protection Agency.
73. "Notice of Availability and Request for Comment on "Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990"". Federal Register. 7 May 2021. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
74. Kornek, Ulrike; Klenert, David; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Fleurbaey, Marc (1 May 2021). "The social cost of carbon and inequality: When local redistribution shapes global carbon prices". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 107 102450. Bibcode:2021JEEM..10702450K. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102450. ISSN   0095-0696.
75. Smith, Steven J.; Clarke, Leon E.; Edmonds, James A.; Kejun, Jiang; Kriegler, Elmar; Masui, Toshihiko; Riahi, Keywan; Shukla, Priyadarshi R.; Tavoni, Massimo; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Weyant, John P. (2015). "Long history of IAM comparisons". Nature Climate Change. 5 (5): 391. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..391S. doi:10.1038/nclimate2576. ISSN   1758-6798.