Closed hoernschen closed 3 months ago
I was maybe thinking the typical ESG goals to make this more aligned: current price, 2030, 2040, 2100? whats your opinion on this?
Yes that is a very good idea. Maybe also 2050?
This Paper perfectly addresses this, even though there are many variables and options, this is very recent paper (2024): https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2312030121
Table 2. Social cost of carbon, alternative scenarios (2019$/tCO2) | Scenario | 2020 | 2025 | 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|
C/B optimal | 50 | 59 | 125 | |
T < 2 °C | 75 | 89 | 213 | |
T < 1.5 °C | 3,557 | 4,185 | 16,552 | |
Alt damage | 124 | 146 | 281 | |
Paris extended | 61 | 72 | 159 | |
Base | 66 | 78 | 175 | |
R = 5% | 32 | 37 | 74 | |
R = 4% | 49 | 58 | 107 | |
R = 3% | 87 | 102 | 172 | |
R = 2% | 176 | 207 | 302 | |
R = 1% | 485 | 571 | 695 |
I would propose the T < 1,5*C number, due to it's direct link to the paris agreement, of which a majority of western country apparently committed to, but fail to achieve.
Search for good literatur
How could time be a factor here? How many output values should be there?