"Anti-fossil fuel SCC relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor.
“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said.
“Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.
The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.”
And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.”
In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so.
...They are essential for electricity and life, and over the past 250 years they more than doubled average life expectancy in countries that took advantage of them.
But the Obama Administration and radical environmentalists despise fossil fuels and used every tactic they could devise to eliminate them.
One of their most important schemes was the “social cost of carbon.”
...However, the entire process was little more than junk science and Garbage In-Garbage Out forecasting.
- First, each ton of U.S. emissions averted would initially have prevented a hypothetical $25/ton in global societal costs allegedly resulting from dangerous manmade climate change: less coastal flooding and tropical disease, fewer droughts and extreme weather events, for example. But within three years regulators arbitrarily increased the SCC to around $40/ton.