This “Rogue Trumpy Judges” (RTJs) effect so corrosive, for reasons that go far behind the rulings.

Even as a low-level nerd in the Admin it was easy to see how the fear of RTJs could influence decisions (1/x)

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1597699488226971651

Remember the bizarre injunction from the District Court earlier this year on the Administration's work on climate damages? You did not have to be a lawyer to see the utter craziness of that decision. But here was a legal take if you want one (2/x)
reason.com/volokh/2022/02…

Good thread below, but it’s a misconception that EPA's new SCC estimates are larger mainly due to changes in discount rates.
Counterintuitively, the new "state-specific" discounting approach keeps the SCCs relatively low.
This will take some tweets to explain (1/x)

https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1591177768922157058

To begin with, EPA assumes that discount rates for the next few hundred years should be calibrated to interest rates on government borrowing. This is controversial among economists (let alone non-economists) but let’s just take this assumption as given...

Here’s the new US Gov’t social cost of carbon from EPA (not the IWG).

The UK still has a much better approach to CO2 valuation that I'll link to below (easy Brits, tea still tastes like pigeon sweat).

But some major advances here worth noting 🧵

epa.gov/system/files/d… The old SCCs were based on deterministic and unrealistic emissions projections. The new versions, based on some great work coordinated by @rff, are probabilistic projections that are more plausible (to the extent any forests to 2300 are plausible)...

Here's my top 5 things to know about these types of estimates of the reduction in economic growth from climate action: (1/6)

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1327009233720799234

1. They don't account for our ability to use climate policy to improve the economy in ways we might not do otherwise, like investing in crumbling infrastructure, accelerating innovation, or using carbon pricing revenue in pro-growth ways (2/5)

Please check out a new interactive table from @ColumbiaUEnergy on the compatibility of a federal carbon tax with other policies that address emissions. And here’s a short thread to explain (1/x):
energypolicy.columbia.edu/compatibility-… Start with these three statements:

1. The price on carbon should be far larger than zero.
2. A carbon price alone is not an ideal climate policy.
3. Some policies fit better alongside a carbon price than others.

Even on twitter, these are uncontroversial, right?

The attention #GreenNewDeal is attracting for the issue of climate change is 💯👍🙏 but I wonder if it’s also contributing to a misconception about the costs of climate action (1/8)

https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1071485312247971841

I keep reading suggestions that paying for decarbonization is similar to how the government picks up the tab for priorities like military spending. This isn’t really how it works. (2/8)

Here's a @ColumbiaUEnergy working paper that describes the new carbon tax bill led by @RepTedDeutch and @citizensclimate and compares it to other carbon tax proposals, so you don’t confuse your CCLs with your CLCs (thread with highlights below): . energypolicy.columbia.edu/BipartisanEner… The Deutch bill’s carbon tax rates are much higher than other recent proposals' by the mid-2020s, which would mean larger emissions reductions, revenues, and energy market impacts:

If you read about climate policy, you often see the following claim: to achieve deep emissions cuts, we’ll need carbon prices of X dollars/ton, where X is in the many hundreds of dollars.

This thread gives you secret recipes for calculating X: Recipe #1: Start with a model that’s been built to depict the energy system and economy as it exists today.

Canada’s carbon pricing plan kicks off in 2019, with provinces required to implement a $20/ton price, increasing to $50/ton by 2022. This thread is an attempt by an ignorant American to summarize the status in each province. Corrections/additions more than welcome! Ontario: Launched cap-and-trade in 2017, linked to Quebec & CA. Its new Premier cancelled the program last month. The federal gov’t will impose a carbon tax on Ontario, and Ontario will challenge it in court. I don't know how likely this case is to succeed.

If you are not rolling your eyes when you read that a climate policy is too expensive because it costs more than the US government central social cost of carbon of ~$50 per ton, this thread is intended to persuade you to get to rolling em: First, this happens all the time. Just this week, I read articles from @BorensteinS and from Fowlie/Greenstone/Wolfram that compare the US gov't SCC to the costs of oil supply restrictions and EE programs, respectively:
energyathaas.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/sho…
academic.oup.com/qje/article/13…