Talk:Social cost of carbon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Updating "Estimates" section

The section cited [this source](https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/social-cost-carbon-101/) for a "$1" lowest estimate; that figure is within the United States. The global figure on that page is $5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampenrose (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maldama21.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 18:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EKingery, Marigonz, Mollyyg, Christinanv. Peer reviewers: Kyliehc, Ikhemani, Iadaniel, Envs2455, Calebohare, Miemng.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 18:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Reference 4

The reference #4 is not clickable and when checking the report manually, no trace of the relevant information is found. I downloaded the full report from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/#full. By the way Chapters are typically standalono documents, as reflected in the reference but there is not 374 pages in chapter 4. Samuelnihoul (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up this source and all is correct. On page 374 (or 62 of the pdf) the report says "This uncertain but potentially positive outcome might be constrained by the higher energy costs of low-emission options in the energy and transportation sectors. The envelope of worldwide marginal abatement costs for 1.5°C-consistent pathways reported in Chapter 2 is 135–5500 USD2010 tCO2
−1 in 2030 and 245–13000 USD2010 tCO2 −1 in 2050, which is between three to four times higher than for a 2°C limit." 193.174.171.8 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expert edits

Hi everyone, I am making edits to this page in collaboration with climate change economist Dr Pu (Eleanor) Yang. Happy to engage with any feedback on these edits here. Thank you!

talk) 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Reliable references and metrics only, please!

@AidanParkinson: I have no idea why you have decided that your edits this month, particularly this one, (but really starting from around here) were even remotely well-advised but unfortunately, we are where we are, and now I just have to make sure the others can see what actually happened.

In a way, I am far more disappointed at the lack of oversight on this page. I expected to see reverts in a matter of hours, and instead I had to step in after several days. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider a reliable reference?
The scientific basis for a Hobbesian calculation has been published for 100's of years. It's Oxford University Press! AidanParkinson (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the page now appears poorly advised and quite significantly biased towards long-term planning. I don't think the authors have full mastery of the topic. AidanParkinson (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the reference you need: https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/thomas-hobbes/leviathan/9780140431957?cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=18059580451&cq_con=&cq_med=pla&cq_plac=&cq_net=x&gclid=CjwKCAjwyNSoBhA9EiwA5aYlbzIPOwSlqXo4l_S0lt6pMZa-NBjXAO6yncxv6qNQlK6LtfcILVqALhoCYtoQAvD_BwE#GOR001333105 AidanParkinson (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please revert to version yesterday. I've been discriminated against here without a reasonable argument. No changes were unreliable at all. Perhaps just a small (rather than large) publisher? AidanParkinson (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very reliable sources nonetheless AidanParkinson (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is discrimination against comprehensive philosophical doctrine. Perspective must be represented. Please revert asap! It's intolerable. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another reliable reference: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Law-Peoples-John-Rawls/dp/0674005422 AidanParkinson (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't much up myself AidanParkinson (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any social cost of carbon metric calculated using the Ramsey Model is unreliable over the longer-term. Far more unreliable than any estimate I have made. I can assure you. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I report 'InformationToKnowledge' somehow for discrimination against comprehensive philosophical belief, please? The authors judgement here has not been grounded in any meaningful analysis. Simply an assumption that I am unreliable because I hold a challenging and higher priority perspective.
I don't seek press with large publishers anymore and only engage with reliable publishers. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, surely you need to engage with the subject matter to question it?
Find a flaw or make and argument against?
'InformationToKnowledge' has provided none of these, resulting in an instant revert. All 'InformationToKnowledge' has done is discriminate against small publisher's and their comprehensive philosophical doctrine, branding them "unreliable" because they hold challenging perspectives.
This behaviour is absolutely disgusting. Fair representation of all reasonable perspectives are necessary. I didn't go around deleting the contributions of others because they were inconvenient to me. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Version committed on 23/09/2023 is far more balanced and representative of the various viewpoints.
Realpolitik might be one argument, but comprehensive philosophical doctrine in the liberal tradition (Commonwealth of Peoples) is also very reasonable.
Please stop discriminating against me. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InformationToKnowledge - I don't believe your edits are well advised. Please revert and simply request the citations you need to appropriately understand the subject matter. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph issues

UN made recommendations for a "carbon price". Is this strictly relevant to a discussion on the social cost of carbon, or should the statement be used elsewhere in Wikipedia? Further, this paragraph is missing specific units. I recommend that reference to the UN's recommendations for a carbon price be deleted. AidanParkinson (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it's the "policy recommendations" sentence. I think it should be deleted without more clarity. AidanParkinson (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in contributions

Contributors are deleting challenging different perspectives, rather than engaging with the subject matter, trying to understand it and requesting citations where they feel statements need sources. There's nothing unreliable about my contributions. AidanParkinson (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant comprehensive philosophical doctrine must be represented

I am concerned that, if we do not fairly represent all peoples various comprehensive philosophical doctrine in this webpage, where relevant, we will be infringing on people's human rights.

In my opinion the popularity of any particular doctrine should not bare weight on what is judged as fair attention. Such judgements need to adopt the difference principle in estimating fair representation. AidanParkinson (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the need for citations, but I understand I can't cite myself. Having blazed a bit of a trail here, there is a need for others to investigate, check themselves for the necessary citations and weigh up the propositions made. AidanParkinson (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the above, as with all the prior edits by AidanParkinson on this talk page and to the article, seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. By long-stablished policy, arrived at through consensus of the community of contributors, article content is exclusively based on content directly verifiable to published
original research, and nor is it a platform for debates about our own 'philosophical doctrines', either on talk pages or in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

A. T. Parkinson, who's that gentleman

I'm working on the translation of [Economic analysis of climate change] into traditional Chinese. That article includes excerpt from [Social cost of carbon], and I just couldn't find a reliable clue about who A. T. Parkinson is, can anybody help? Thanks.__ThomasYehYeh (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved that paragraph out of the lead because I could not understand it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section says:
“Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined.” Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AidanParkinson I now see you added that - so are you A. T. Parkinson? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is. Just read the talk page a few headings above. What that user has been doing here over months is effectively vandalism stemming from extreme
WP:FRINGE
presumptiousness that his unpublished musings deserve to be treated the same as reliable sources.
I brought this matter up to an administrator over two months ago and I thought that would address the matter, but it seems like I have either done it too informally, on my talk page rather than through official channels, or no-one watches this page in the first place, or (which would be the most discouraging) people do watch this page, but none apparently have the competence in the subject to recognize that edits with summaries like this or like this (let alone the dozen replies to himself up above) are pure crackpottery.
Either way, I think you have more experience with the social side of Wikipedia than me, so would you mind contacting
WP:ANI, or whatever is the most appropriate place to finally deal with this? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@InformationToKnowledge I generally agree with what you say, but sorry Wikipedia bureaucracy is too boring and frustrating for me. Also it seems the SCC is only used in USA and Canada, and there are plenty of American and Canadian Wikipedians who would understand this better than a European like me. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as possibly original research Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start, but I can't believe you still do not seem to notice any issue with sentences like "A theory of the social contract put forward by Hobbes in Leviathan has universal relevance to the required evaluations of this "State of Nature"! I don't think one's place of residence would have a bearing on deciding that 17th century philosophy does not belong in a discussion of a 21st century legal and scientific measure! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the discussion around Hobbes, the "state of nature", "Peoples of the Global Commons" etc needs to go, as facile editorialising
WP:OR. It is entirely contrary to policy, and has no place in any Wikipedia article. The simplest solution might be to revert the article back to its state prior to AidanParkinson's first edit, and then check to see if anything of merit and compliant with Wikipedia policy that was added since then needs restoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@AndyTheGrump@InformationToKnowledge I have no objection to either of you rolling back if you wish. I can easily redo any of my edits you revert. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, given the lack of further comment, I think we can safely revert the article right back to the state before AidanParkinson's first edit on 29 April 2023‎. I don't think we'll lose anything of particular significance content-wise by doing so. I'll leave this for a few hours, and if nobody objects, perform the revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made the revert. [1] Apologies to anyone who made useful edits in the meantime, but it doesn't seem practical to go through the entire article and figure out exactly what might be retained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I'd missed a couple of prior IP edits, presumably also made by AidanParkinson. Apologies for that, but we now seem to have achieved the desired result between us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have called me a "crackpot" and a "vandal". Have reverted thoughtful contributions grounded in highly esteemed literature.
You've also labelled Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press and Fringe Papers unreliable
.
You've worked to revert content, rather than learn from it.
This conversation is hostile, not collaborative. Please do your research before dismissing people.
The perspective I was reporting was comprehensive philosophical belief. So, your conduct here is a form of discrimination. AidanParkinson (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia 'discriminates' against article content which does not conform to core policy. As does every publication of repute (and most others), everywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled at this edit war

@AndyTheGrump and @InformationToKnowledge appear to have a poor understanding of the subject matter. For the record, the perspective they have written up was subject of my PhD, so I understand it well. However, neither of them have properly considered the broader picture that doesn't require much in the way of novel content.

The point is Social Costs of Carbon are simple to calculate, don't require policy support and are not something only relevant to the United States. Such an approach can be grounded in Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press literature.

Because my different points of view reflect comprehensive philosophical doctrine, I can only suggest their cancelling of my thoughtful propositions discrimination of belief. They should note, when I add my perspective I don't delete theirs. AidanParkinson (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I fail to understand what criteria @InformationToKnowledge uses to judge a "reliable publisher". Does they simply mean "a big publisher"? AidanParkinson (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SELFCITE. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't cited my own PhD!!! AidanParkinson (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like me and others to consider citing it feel free to link to it here Chidgk1 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have effectively reverted all my good work. I am highly dissatisfied and wish you could have found a way to work with the useful content. Time to seek arbitration perhaps?

There's nothing unreliable about the references contained in my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanParkinson (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions consisted entirely of
weight of relevant perspectives in our articles reflecting the weight given in such sources. This isn't open to negotiation here, since discussions on article talk pages cannot override core Wikipedia policy. If your failure to understand how Wikipedia works after being informed of relevant policy on multiple occasions results in you being 'dissatisfied', that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Considering minority perspective

It is clear to me that the Nations States perspectives here is a minority view, as they are only held by a couple of administrations in North America. They are not justified for application to the remainder of humanity.

The "Commonwealth of Peoples" perspective follows the liberal tradition and I believe is well regarded across the world. It is intended here to be suited to a private sector initiative, which doesn't require policy support. I personally find it the way forward when seeking common ground between Peoples in a system of reasonable pluralism. Therefore, actually where I find the majority of support.

However, I see no reason to exclude Nation States approaches from the discussion. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wikipedia does not seem to have much info on “Commonwealth of Peoples” and I don’t know what that is. I know nothing about Thomas Hobbes. Perhaps there should be a redirect from Commonwealth of Peoples to a book by Hobbes which describes “Commonwealth of Peoples”? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I consider Hobbes relevant and the book is considered an absolute classic to our understanding of the social contract when it comes to the global commons.
But, to put it into context - read and understand John Rawls: A Theory of Justice first.
I'm not a crackpot at all. I actually represent a very considered viewpoint where Justice takes priority over Welfare. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nonsensical
WP:OR has no relevance to article content. Hobbes wrote precisely nothing about the social cost of carbon, and this absurd attempt to turn a 17th-century commentary on the merits of a Christian monarchy into some sort of 'philosophical perspective' on a topic he had absolutely no knowledge of, belongs nowhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hobbes wrote about submitting to a common sovereign and allowing the sovereign the right to raise enforcement accordingly. If one simply submits to Earth as the Peoples sovereign (which is a simple choice), it follows that common enforcement costs become State losses, whilst greenhouse gas emissions State goods.
I understand Hobbes is a bit old fashioned in some of his understanding. But he still makes some very salient points about the State of Nature. It's not the only view that can be held of the world.
John Rawls cites international foreign policy as an essentially Hobbesian State of Nature. He later attempted to develop just terms for foreign policy arrangements, which I follow to mitigate privately. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the book, Hobbes even talks about spending long days together in light of the weather. Maybe a coincidence, but I found it quite fascinating really. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "many days", not "long days" AidanParkinson (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio between common enforcement costs and greenhouse gas emissions is similar to the deadweight loss of ideal taxation. AidanParkinson (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above soapboxing, along with what is either (a) a failure to read relevant Wikipedia policy, after being informed of it repeatedly, (b) an inability to understand said policy, or (c) a refusal to accept that such policy applies here, there is self-evidently no point in attempting to discuss this further. I shall instead be requesting that AidanParkinson's topic ban be extended to this topic page, to prevent further time-wasting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump - you really don't like me do you?
I'm sorry that you consider my thoughtful contributions a "waste of time". We have a difference there, because I don't.
If you don't want to engage with me, that's really fine.
I'd hope others could find a way to be more friendly. AidanParkinson (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump If you do so please could you let us know so we can support or oppose thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1 - you could investigate the following book of mine, if you have any further interest in justification for a "Peoples" approach to this problem. Then you could consider for inclusion yourself in this page, so that it is less institutionally biased. I realise now it's probably not appropriate I make the corrections to this Wikipedia page myself.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Ecosystem_Alarm_Management.html?id=d1Yn0AEACAAJ
In my opinion, this page needs a significant re-write to be relevant to anyone outside North America, even outside politics. I'm sorry if I have crossed editorial guidelines as a leading contributor. I do understand the majority view, or common, understanding currently lies elsewhere from the Wikipedia page, as is. More research is needed by others.
I am focussed on an initiative through the private sector. We use an SSC (Commonwealth Cost of Carbon) performance metric that has no foundation in public policy or foreward planning.
Further, if this talk page could be more diplomatic, constructive and generally less abusive to small publishers that would be well received. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Due to disruption, AidanParkinson is now blocked from editing this talk page, as well as the article. And given that his self-published book would quite obviously fail to meet
WP:SELFPUBLISH, there is nothing further to discuss here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Why Canadian SCC different from Carbon pricing in Canada?

WP:NOTFORUM
- this talk page is intended to discuss article content only. It is not a platform for debate or discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Aidenparkinson As you are more academically qualified than I am and can write well I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in future, as there are so many articles you would be able to improve.

I realise that it is politically impossible for the current US government to introduce a carbon price. But do you or anyone else have any idea why the Canadian SCC is different from their carbon price? Perhaps this is something to do with their politics or the North American Free Trade Agreement? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_cost_of_carbon&oldid=1217909295"