Incremental CH₄and N₂O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO₂estimates

Abstract

Benefit-cost analysis can serve as an informative input into the policy-making process, but only to the degree it characterizes the major impacts of the regulation under consideration. Recently, the US, amongst other nations, has begun to use estimates of the social cost of CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ) to develop analyses that more fully capture the climate change impacts of GHG abatement. The SC-CO 2 represents the aggregate willingness to pay to avoid the damages associated with an additional tonne of CO 2 emissions. In comparison, the social costs of non-CO 2 GHGs have received little attention from researchers and policy analysts, despite their non-negligible climate impact. This article addresses this issue by developing a set of social cost estimates for two highly prevalent non-CO 2 GHGs, methane and nitrous oxide. By extending existing integrated assessment models, it is possible to develop a set of social cost estimates for these gases that are consistent with the SC-CO 2 estimates currently in use by the US federal government. Policy relevanceWithin the benefit-cost analyses that inform the design of major regulations, all Federal agencies within the US Government (USG) use a set of agreed upon SC-CO 2 estimates to value the impact of CO 2 emissions changes. However, the value of changes in non-CO 2 GHG emissions has not been included in USG policy analysis to date. This article addresses that omission by developing a set of social cost estimates for two highly prevalent non-CO 2 GHGs, methane and nitrous oxide. These new estimates are designed to be compatible with the USG SC-CO 2 estimates currently in use and may therefore be directly applied to value emissions changes for these non-CO 2 gases within the benefit-cost analyses used to evaluate future policies.

Valuing the Ozone-Related Health Benefits of Methane Emission Controls

“…The SC-CH 4 can also be estimated directly by the models used to estimate the SCC. Waldhoff et al (2014); (Marten et al 2014) and Marten and Newbold (2012) both found that the directly modeled relative damage of CH 4 to CO 2 was greater than the GWP-based damages. 16 Marten et al (2014) use a methodology consistent with the US Government SCC and the sensitivities tested in this paper and found that for CH 4 emissions in 2020, at a discount rate of 3 %, the Social Cost of Methane was (2007)$1200 (or $1302 in 2011$).…”

“…16 Marten et al (2014) use a methodology consistent with the US Government SCC and the sensitivities tested in this paper and found that for CH 4 emissions in 2020, at a discount rate of 3 %, the Social Cost of Methane was (2007)$1200 (or $1302 in 2011$). The global ozone mortality benefits estimated in this paper are 0.7 or 1.5 times the estimate of climate benefits using the updated SCC and GWP, and 0.6 or 1.4 times the estimate of climate benefits from Marten et al (2014), for the short and long-term ozone mortality estimates, respectively.…”

“…The values of these mortality benefits are (2011)$790/t-CH 4 and $1,775/t-CH 4 , respectively. Ozone mortality benefits are 0.7-1.5 times the estimate of climate benefits based on the US Government's central SCC estimate and GWP, or 0.6-0.4 times the estimate of climate benefits based on Marten et al (2014), with the range depending on whether the short or long-term ozone mortality estimate is used. Both measures are uncertain.…”

“…Similarly, the climate benefits of marginal reductions in methane, known as the Social Cost of Methane (SC-CH 4 ) have been estimated in the literature [e.g. (Marten et al 2014;Marten and Newbold 2012;Waldhoff et al 2014)]. The US Government has also calculated benefits of methane reduction using the Social Cost of Carbon 4 (SCC) and the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane.…”

Designing better methane mitigation policies: the challenge of distributed small sources in the natural gas sector

“…This 'carrot-and-stick' approach can mitigate emissions at a rate faster than what conventional periodic LDAR surveys would allow. To illustrate, 'sticks' can take the form of fines or fees based on actual emission levels and a social cost of methane [29]; 'carrots' can include a system that rewards better-than-required performance (e.g. revenue recycling from fines or preferential permitting for excellent operators).…”