The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Biden administration, for now, to use a higher estimate for the societal cost of rising greenhouse gases when federal agencies draft regulations.
Search website. Enter your search term above.
Human health and the natural environment are indivisible. A recent article in the journal The Lancet reminds us that “economic decisions on the environment have major impacts on human health, and health and wellness depend on a flourishing environment.”
The Biden administration and red states are dueling in multiple courts after a federal judge temporarily blocked use of the social cost of carbon.
In the coal fields of eastern Montana, climate change is forcing a stark choice: halt mining that helped build everything from schools to senior centers or risk astronomical future damage as fossil fuel emissions warm the planet and increase disasters, crop losses and premature deaths.
What is the ‘social cost of carbon’? 2 energy experts explain after court ruling blocks Biden’s changes
When a power plant runs on coal or natural gas, the greenhouse gases it releases cause harm – but the power company isn’t paying for the damage.
Once more unto the breach, my friends—once more to talk about carbon pricing.
For 40 years, economists and environmentalists have proposed a simple solution to climate change: Put a price on it. If the government levies a fee on every ton of heat-trapping pollution that goes into the air, then the economy will move to cleaner, cheaper energy sources, and carbon pollution will fall over time.
Emission allowances in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program covering power plants in the Northeast, closed at a record-high $13 per ton at auction last week.
Carbon fees implemented across industries could significantly reduce energy-related emissions in the United States, according to an analysis by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Pricing carbon is vital to US climate goals and politically unlikely, but there is another way, analysts say
Imposing a federal price on carbon to drive decarbonization is both urgent and unlikely, but there may be a workaround, according to some economists and policymakers.
Eight years ago, Kevin Prevo started making changes to the land in southern Iowa that his family has farmed for five generations. Mr. Prevo stopped tilling the fields between crop cycles and started planting cover crops he does not harvest — a mix including rye, turnips, radishes and sunflowers — between rotations of his cash crops, corn, soybeans and rye.