Biden ‘social cost of carbon’ upheld by court

Used to calculate damages associated with emissions from burning fossil fuels etc


Reuters October 23, 2022
PHOTO: AFP

NEW YORK:

A US appeals court on Friday upheld the “social cost of carbon” calculation used by President Joe Biden’s administration, which sharply boosts the price tag policy makers will put on the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from that used by former President Donald Trump.

The St Louis, Missouri-based 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs, attorneys general from 13 states, including Missouri, Alaska and Montana, cannot rely on “generalised grievances” to challenge the metric absent, a specific action taken by a federal agency.

The social cost of carbon metric is used in rulemaking processes and permitting decisions to calculate economic damages associated with a rise in greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and other activities. The decision supports the Biden administration’s argument that states cannot sue until federal agencies incorporate the metric into decisions.

The Missouri attorney general’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Democratic Biden administration had determined the cost to be around $51 per metric tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, quintuple the roughly $10 figure implemented under Trump, a Republican.

The Republican attorneys general challenged Biden’s February 2021 executive order that restored the approximately $51 per metric tonne number set by former President Barack Obama’s administration. The states argued in a lawsuit filed in Missouri federal court last year that the pricing system would lead to regulatory restrictions that would overburden farmers and manufacturers.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 23rd, 2022.

Like Business on Facebookfollow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ