The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.
The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.
Yes but climate change will have dramatically negative effects in agriculture in the long term. The cost of food can’t always be a silver bullet objection to climate regulation. We can undoubtedly find ways to grow food with less carbon cost if there is economic incentive for it, and long term impacts need to be considered even more than short term when we consider how bad the projections are.
As a family of 4 our weekly food bill has gone from 150 a week to around 250 plus a week for the same foods in just a couple of years. That’s a thousand dollars plus or minus a month over the past 3 years.
I know that food prices may not mean much to you. But when you have kids you can’t say “oh I’m out of money so everyone is eating ramen”. Whether you like the fact that food is a consideration for me or not. I can guarantee that a lot of other people are concerned about this as well, and the right will use it as a talking point.
Then when you add in the fact that electric tractors aren’t a thing. Then the blame falls on the government. Also, I’m not saying that the rest of it is bad. Even though my power bill is over 400 a month in the summer, and my 1200 a month rent is now 1800 a month in 3 years.
But yeah I guess I’m crazy to worry about food and other things for my family. You’re right though. I should just suck it up and plant trees who’s shade I’ll never enjoy using my family as fertilizer.
So … let the world burn?
Removed by mod
Why does it have to be either or? I’m saying that changes have to be made. But, why not come up with a better plan that doesn’t cause more economic hardship for the people.
Having a better tomorrow is no good if our kids can’t afford to live in it. There has to be a better way than passing restrictions that just pass the buck on to the citizens.
Most of what we buy is artificially underpriced. This is in part because of government subsidies coming from our taxes. The other part, is significant exploitation of people out of your sight and mind.
When our lifestyle is priced at what it is due due human exploitation and suffering you have too options: exploit even harder to reduce prices or start paying a humane price for things. We’ve got it good in the West.
Removed by mod
As a parent, I’d think you would be particularly concerned about the long term impact of carbon emissions. If food is expensive now, what is going to happen to your kids’ quality of life when changing weather makes it impossible to raise food in traditional farming areas? Pretty much every model shows rapidly increasing food prices at best, widespread starvation at worst.
I’m sorry you’re struggling to feed your kids and I’m kinda baffled why you are assuming I have no sympathy for those in a bad spot. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for better government assistance for those who can’t afford food. Loosening carbon regulations to reduce food prices is just kicking the can down the road so the issue will be far worse when your children are adults.
Removed by mod
Also, here is something I’d like to share. This guy is talking about beef, but it applies to all agriculture. Veggies maybe even more.