SCC white paper 4_1_2010 SEI

This white paper by the Stockholm Environment Institute critiques the U.S. government's use of the 'social cost of carbon' (SCC) to guide climate regulations. The authors argue that the administration's 'central' estimate of $21 per ton of CO2 is dangerously low due to a reliance on flawed economic models, inappropriately high discount rates, and the omission of catastrophic climate risks. They advocate for a shift toward science-based targets and cost-effectiveness analysis rather than narrow cost-benefit calculations.

• The U.S. interagency working group's 'central' estimate of $21 per ton of CO2 in 2010 is considered far too low to drive meaningful mitigation. This value, which equates to roughly 20 cents per gallon of gasoline, could lead to regulations that fail to reduce U.S. emissions significantly.
• The administration's SCC estimates rely on three integrated assessment models—FUND, PAGE, and DICE—which the authors describe as biased and simplistic. Specifically, FUND is criticized for assuming that human lives in poor countries are worth less than those in rich ones and for predicting that early warming reduces mortality. PAGE is criticized for assuming developed nations can adapt to climate change at near-zero cost, and DICE is criticized for assuming most people would prefer a warmer climate.
• The use of discount rates between 2.5% and 5% per year is criticized as an ethical failure that undervalues future damages. At a 3% discount rate, $100 in damages occurring a century from now is reduced to a present-day value of only $5, which the authors argue harms future generations.
• The current SCC calculations largely ignore the risk of catastrophic, irreversible climate damage. The authors argue that policy should prioritize avoiding worst-case scenarios through a 'safe' minimum standard based on scientific risk analysis, rather than relying on average cost-benefit calculations.
• The authors highlight a disconnect between economic models and climate science. While some models like FUND suggest the first 3°C of warming could be beneficial, climate science suggests that warming beyond 2°C puts the world at high risk of catastrophic consequences.
• The United Kingdom provides a comparative example of a higher carbon price. After abandoning SCC calculations in 2009, the UK government estimated a carbon price range of $41–$124 per ton of CO2, with a central case of $83.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). SCC white paper 4_1_2010 SEI. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/socialcostofcarbon_sei_20100401.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. SCC white paper 4_1_2010 SEI. n.d. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/socialcostofcarbon_sei_20100401.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=SCC white paper 4_1_2010 SEI |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/socialcostofcarbon_sei_20100401.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendscc, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{SCC white paper 4\_1\_2010 SEI}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/socialcostofcarbon_sei_20100401.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }