Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2
Open accessAbstract
The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO 2 ) measures the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates draw on climate science, economics, demography and other disciplines. However, a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 . Our preferred mean SC-CO 2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO 2 ($44–$413 per tCO 2 : 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 tCO 2 . Our estimates incorporate updated scientific understanding throughout all components of SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The focus on heat and cold mortality reflects its strong empirical grounding and perceived significance, in contrast to pathways through extreme weather events that are more uncertain and to a degree unknowable.
“Their focus on this particular pathway reflects its strong empirical grounding and perceived significance37,38 – in contrast to pathways through extreme weather events that are more uncertain and, to a certain degree, unknowable.40”
From Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The primary pathway that recent studies evaluated is the effect of heat on mortality and the benefit from reduced cold-induced mortality.
“The primary pathway that these recent studies evaluated is the effect of heat on mortality and, conversely, the benefit from reduced cold-induced mortality.”
From Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Several multi-disciplinary consortia have recently attempted to robustly quantify the mortality impacts of climate change.
“Despite these difficulties, several multi-disciplinary consortia have recently attempted to robustly quantify the mortality impacts of climate change.36–38”
From Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The divergence in RCP8.5 projections reflects differences in the studies' assumptions, including the shape of the relationship between mortality risk and temperature and the inclusion of climate models accounting for low-likelihood, extreme climate outcomes.
“This divergence reflects differences in the studies’ assumptions, including the shape of the relationship between mortality risk and temperature37,38 and the inclusion of climate models accounting for low-likelihood, extreme climate outcomes.37”
From Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., & Chhetri, N. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2153 · Cited by 2,333 · see citing works
Self-citationThe shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., et al. (2020) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020 · Cited by 1,815 · see citing works
Adaptation to climate change: Evidence from US agriculture
Burke, M., & Emerick, K. (2016) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.20130025 · Cited by 922 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Global health 2050: the path to halving premature death by mid-century
Jamison, D. T., Summers, L. H., Chang, A. Y., Karlsson, O., Mao, W., Norheim, O. F., Ogbuoji, O., Schäferhoff, M., Watkins, D., Adeyi, O., et al. (2024) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01439-9 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Sanders, R. E. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2994426 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rennert, K., Errickson, F., Prest, B. C., Rennels, L., Newell, R. G., Pizer, W., Kingdon, C., Wingenroth, J., Cooke, R., Parthum, B., Smith, D., Cromar, K., Diaz, D., Moore, F. C., Müller, U. K., Plevin, R. J., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., Sheets, H., Stock, J. H., Tan, T., Watson, M., Wong, T. E., & Anthoff, D.
- Affiliations
- Resources For The Future (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Environmental Protection Agency (US)
- New York University (US)
- Electric Power Research Institute (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Anthoff, David
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2022-09-01
- Volume
- 610
- Issue
- 7933
- Pages
- 687-692
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC9605864
- OpenAlex
- W4294052458
- Cited by
- 1,067
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 231 · 2025: 314 · 2024: 272 · 2023: 223 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 166.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RIT Scholar Works (Rochester Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD070936)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Keywords
- social cost of carbon, CO2 emissions, climate policy, cost-benefit analysis, discount rate, uncertainty characterization, socioeconomic projections, climate damage functions, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, risk valuation
- MeSH terms
- Greenhouse Gases, Climate Models, Carbon Dioxide, Climate, Policy Making, Risk, Socioeconomic Factors, Uncertainty, Environmental Policy, Delay Discounting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
