The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a hideous construct of mainstream economics. It is designed to show the economic value to the world of reducing a single unit of greenhouse gas emissions. It provides a number that can then be plugged into cost-benefit calculations.
It is now widely acknowledged that decarbonisation will not be possible without putting a price on carbon. Some economists (and most modellers outside Cambridge Econometrics) even suggest that a carbon price would be sufficient to meet carbon targets.
When President Trump announced a tariff on imports of solar panels (which came into effect on 7th February) we immediately ran some figures through our macroeconomic model to assess the impact that the policy might have on the US energy system.
It’s been a week since the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bonn, so it must be time to start thinking about Christmas (or in my case this year, my wedding!). But before moving on completely it is worth spending some time reflecting on the events of the last few weeks.
Cambridge Econometrics’ projections suggest that the carbon emissions gap to 2°C might be 10 GtCO2e in 2030, notably less than projections by other research institutes, including those in the UNEP report published this week. There is reason to be optimistic.
On 11 September 2017 the UK government announced that two developers would commit to delivering 2.4GW of offshore wind capacity for a strike price of £57.50 per MWh generated from 2022/23, taking the industry by surprise. Comparisons to the £92.50 MWh required by the planned H…