The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy. Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit–cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44–$413 per tCO2: 5%–95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2%, a value 3.6 times higher than the US government’s current value of $51 per tCO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the new open-source Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator (GIVE) model, in a manner fully responsive to the near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared with estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate policies.

No abstract

We are grateful to Drillinginfo for data used in this study. The authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

We analyze the price responsiveness of U.S. conventional and unconventional oil supply across three key stages of oil production: drilling, completion, and production. Drilling is the most important margin, with price elasticities of 1.3 and 1.6 for conventional and unconventional drilling respectively. Well productivity declines as prices rise, implying smaller net supply elasticities of about 1.1 and 1.2. Despite similar supply elasticities, the price response of unconventional supply is larger in terms of barrels because of much higher production per well (~10x initially). Oil supply simulations show a 13-fold larger supply response due to the shale revolution. The simulations suggest that a price rise from $50 to $80 per barrel induces incremental U.S. production of 0.6MM barrels per day in 6 months, 1.4MM in 1 year, 2.4MM in 2 years, and 4.2MM in 5 years. Nonetheless, the response takes much longer than the 30 to 90 days than typically associated with the role of "swing producer.

No abstract