Current:Home > FinanceEPA's proposal to raise the cost of carbon is a powerful tool and ethics nightmare -CapitalWay
EPA's proposal to raise the cost of carbon is a powerful tool and ethics nightmare
View
Date:2025-04-15 02:15:45
One of the most important tools that the federal government has for cracking down on greenhouse gas emissions is a single number: the social cost of carbon. It represents all the costs to humanity of emitting one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, including everything from the cost of lost crops and flooded homes to the cost of lost wages when people can't safely work outside and, finally, the cost of climate-related deaths.
Currently, the cost is $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
NPR climate correspondent Rebecca Hersher tells Short Wave co-host Aaron Scott that the number is getting an update soon. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed raising the cost to $190. The change could dramatically alter how the government confronts climate change.
"That's a move in the right direction," says Daniel Hemel, a law professor at New York University who studies these cost benefit analyses.
But the new, more accurate number is also an ethics nightmare.
Daniel and other experts are worried about a specific aspect of the calculation: The way the EPA thinks about human lives lost to climate change. The number newly accounts for climate-related deaths around the world, but does not factor in every death equally.
Listen to Short Wave on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.
Got questions or story ideas? Email the show at ShortWave@NPR.org.
This episode was produced by Margaret Cirino, edited by our supervising producer Rebecca Ramirez, and fact-checked by Anil Oza. Katherine Silva was the audio engineer.
veryGood! (4)
Related
- Alex Murdaugh’s murder appeal cites biased clerk and prejudicial evidence
- Fortnite maker Epic Games agrees to settle privacy and deception cases
- What Does Net Zero Emissions Mean for Big Oil? Not What You’d Think
- Coal Is On Its Way Out in Indiana. But What Replaces It and Who Will Own It?
- Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people
- It's really dangerous: Surfers face chaotic waves and storm surge in hurricane season
- Pregnant Stassi Schroeder Wants to Try Ozempic After Giving Birth
- Russia's economy is still working but sanctions are starting to have an effect
- The White House is cracking down on overdraft fees
- The overlooked power of Latino consumers
Ranking
- Highlights from Trump’s interview with Time magazine
- Can America’s First Floating Wind Farm Help Open Deeper Water to Clean Energy?
- Hundreds of Toxic Superfund Sites Imperiled by Sea-Level Rise, Study Warns
- Voters Flip Virginia’s Legislature, Clearing Way for Climate and Clean Energy Policies
- 'As foretold in the prophecy': Elon Musk and internet react as Tesla stock hits $420 all
- Fortnite maker Epic Games agrees to settle privacy and deception cases
- Kim and Khloe Kardashian Take Barbie Girls Chicago, True, Stormi and Dream on Fantastic Outing
- Tree Deaths in Urban Settings Are Linked to Leaks from Natural Gas Pipelines Below Streets
Recommendation
Nearly 400 USAID contract employees laid off in wake of Trump's 'stop work' order
Southwest cancels another 4,800 flights as its reduced schedule continues
Shannen Doherty Recalls “Overwhelming” Fear Before Surgery to Remove Tumor in Her Head
Republicans plan more attacks on ESG. Investors still plan to focus on climate risk
US wholesale inflation accelerated in November in sign that some price pressures remain elevated
Six ways media took a big step backward in 2022
The case of the two Grace Elliotts: a medical bill mystery
Six ways media took a big step backward in 2022