SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
An aerial view shows Marathon Petroleum Corp's Los Angeles Refinery, California's largest producer of gasoline, on April 22, 2020. (Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)
A new analysis shared with the Biden administration on behalf of the advocacy group Friends of the Earth highlights concerns about how the U.S. government will calculate the social cost of planet-heating emissions--official figures that can notably impact policy and spending decisions.
The comment (pdf) sent to the Office of Management and Budget--authored by experts at the Applied Economics Clinic (AEC), a Massachusetts-based nonprofit consulting group--comes as the administration seeks input on determining the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG).
"The social cost of greenhouse gases is one of the most important numbers that no one has ever heard of," said Karen Orenstein, director of the Climate and Energy Program at Friends of the Earth (FOE) U.S., in a statement Tuesday.
"If the U.S. were to assume its fair share of the global effort to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius," she added, referencing the Paris agreement's more ambitious target, "the cost of one ton of GHG emissions would be so high that government support for climate-polluting investments would be a non-starter."
The U.S. government started considering the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) back in 2010, eventually also taking into account the costs of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
As Undark detailed in March, "This seemingly obscure concept puts a number on how much damage a metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will do in the future, in order to show how much a given climate policy would benefit the economy in the long run."
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change."
--Elizabeth Stanton, AEC
Tamma Carleton, an environmental economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the outlet that "the social cost of carbon is incredibly important because it enables policymakers or other decision-makers to put the costs and benefits of any climate policy on a level playing field."
"It's not the environment versus the economy--climate change has measurable effects on the economy--so it's really about measuring what's best for society," while choosing smart policies, Carleton explained.
With an executive order on his first day in office, President Joe Biden reconvened the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases that his predecessor had disbanded in 2017.
In line with Biden's order--over which Republican-led states filed suit--the working group released (pdf) interim estimates for the social costs of greenhouse gases the following month but is set to finalize its figures by January 2022 and the process for regularly revising those numbers by next June.
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change," Elizabeth Stanton, director and senior economist at AEC, said Tuesday.
In their analysis for FOE, Stanton and her AEC colleagues found that the social cost of CO2 calculates to at least 15 times the Biden administration's current figure of $51 per ton.
AEC's comment emphasizes that "the social costs of climate change--destroyed livelihoods and homes, negative health impacts and lost lives, reduced access to food sources and clean water--are a crucial input into the policy analysis that determines both how much the U.S. federal government is willing to spend on our behalf to avoid these serious, irreversible impacts and how little it should spend subsidizing fossil fuels."
As the analysis explains:
The United States alone emits more than 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2 every year. The consequences for underestimating the climate damage of a single added ton of greenhouse gas emissions are dire. The lower this value is set, the less the U.S. federal government spends on climate change mitigation," AEC adds. "This translates into less urgency and ambition applied to addressing the climate crisis and consequently more devastating impacts on lives and livelihoods in the United States--especially in environmental justice communities--and around the world--especially in developing countries.
The Biden administration's temporary estimates, the comment says, "represent a marked improvement over the Trump administration's open attempt to reduce the SC-GHGs to as close to zero dollars per ton as possible, effectively arguing that greenhouse gases result in little or no damage to human society."
However, the working group "must account more effectively for intergenerational and interregional equity (both within the United States and internationally), reduce the devaluation of future climate damages, and ensure that SC-GHG values are based on targets for holding temperature increases below levels identified by scientists as crucial to the continuation of human civilization as we know it," the analysis adds.
AEC and FOE's specific suggestions to the Biden administration include:
While recognizing that "a more complete update that follows the best science takes time," Heather Boushey, a member of Biden's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote on behalf of the working group co-chairs in February that "this administration will follow the science and listen to the experts."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
A new analysis shared with the Biden administration on behalf of the advocacy group Friends of the Earth highlights concerns about how the U.S. government will calculate the social cost of planet-heating emissions--official figures that can notably impact policy and spending decisions.
The comment (pdf) sent to the Office of Management and Budget--authored by experts at the Applied Economics Clinic (AEC), a Massachusetts-based nonprofit consulting group--comes as the administration seeks input on determining the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG).
"The social cost of greenhouse gases is one of the most important numbers that no one has ever heard of," said Karen Orenstein, director of the Climate and Energy Program at Friends of the Earth (FOE) U.S., in a statement Tuesday.
"If the U.S. were to assume its fair share of the global effort to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius," she added, referencing the Paris agreement's more ambitious target, "the cost of one ton of GHG emissions would be so high that government support for climate-polluting investments would be a non-starter."
The U.S. government started considering the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) back in 2010, eventually also taking into account the costs of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
As Undark detailed in March, "This seemingly obscure concept puts a number on how much damage a metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will do in the future, in order to show how much a given climate policy would benefit the economy in the long run."
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change."
--Elizabeth Stanton, AEC
Tamma Carleton, an environmental economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the outlet that "the social cost of carbon is incredibly important because it enables policymakers or other decision-makers to put the costs and benefits of any climate policy on a level playing field."
"It's not the environment versus the economy--climate change has measurable effects on the economy--so it's really about measuring what's best for society," while choosing smart policies, Carleton explained.
With an executive order on his first day in office, President Joe Biden reconvened the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases that his predecessor had disbanded in 2017.
In line with Biden's order--over which Republican-led states filed suit--the working group released (pdf) interim estimates for the social costs of greenhouse gases the following month but is set to finalize its figures by January 2022 and the process for regularly revising those numbers by next June.
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change," Elizabeth Stanton, director and senior economist at AEC, said Tuesday.
In their analysis for FOE, Stanton and her AEC colleagues found that the social cost of CO2 calculates to at least 15 times the Biden administration's current figure of $51 per ton.
AEC's comment emphasizes that "the social costs of climate change--destroyed livelihoods and homes, negative health impacts and lost lives, reduced access to food sources and clean water--are a crucial input into the policy analysis that determines both how much the U.S. federal government is willing to spend on our behalf to avoid these serious, irreversible impacts and how little it should spend subsidizing fossil fuels."
As the analysis explains:
The United States alone emits more than 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2 every year. The consequences for underestimating the climate damage of a single added ton of greenhouse gas emissions are dire. The lower this value is set, the less the U.S. federal government spends on climate change mitigation," AEC adds. "This translates into less urgency and ambition applied to addressing the climate crisis and consequently more devastating impacts on lives and livelihoods in the United States--especially in environmental justice communities--and around the world--especially in developing countries.
The Biden administration's temporary estimates, the comment says, "represent a marked improvement over the Trump administration's open attempt to reduce the SC-GHGs to as close to zero dollars per ton as possible, effectively arguing that greenhouse gases result in little or no damage to human society."
However, the working group "must account more effectively for intergenerational and interregional equity (both within the United States and internationally), reduce the devaluation of future climate damages, and ensure that SC-GHG values are based on targets for holding temperature increases below levels identified by scientists as crucial to the continuation of human civilization as we know it," the analysis adds.
AEC and FOE's specific suggestions to the Biden administration include:
While recognizing that "a more complete update that follows the best science takes time," Heather Boushey, a member of Biden's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote on behalf of the working group co-chairs in February that "this administration will follow the science and listen to the experts."
A new analysis shared with the Biden administration on behalf of the advocacy group Friends of the Earth highlights concerns about how the U.S. government will calculate the social cost of planet-heating emissions--official figures that can notably impact policy and spending decisions.
The comment (pdf) sent to the Office of Management and Budget--authored by experts at the Applied Economics Clinic (AEC), a Massachusetts-based nonprofit consulting group--comes as the administration seeks input on determining the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG).
"The social cost of greenhouse gases is one of the most important numbers that no one has ever heard of," said Karen Orenstein, director of the Climate and Energy Program at Friends of the Earth (FOE) U.S., in a statement Tuesday.
"If the U.S. were to assume its fair share of the global effort to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius," she added, referencing the Paris agreement's more ambitious target, "the cost of one ton of GHG emissions would be so high that government support for climate-polluting investments would be a non-starter."
The U.S. government started considering the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) back in 2010, eventually also taking into account the costs of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
As Undark detailed in March, "This seemingly obscure concept puts a number on how much damage a metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will do in the future, in order to show how much a given climate policy would benefit the economy in the long run."
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change."
--Elizabeth Stanton, AEC
Tamma Carleton, an environmental economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the outlet that "the social cost of carbon is incredibly important because it enables policymakers or other decision-makers to put the costs and benefits of any climate policy on a level playing field."
"It's not the environment versus the economy--climate change has measurable effects on the economy--so it's really about measuring what's best for society," while choosing smart policies, Carleton explained.
With an executive order on his first day in office, President Joe Biden reconvened the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases that his predecessor had disbanded in 2017.
In line with Biden's order--over which Republican-led states filed suit--the working group released (pdf) interim estimates for the social costs of greenhouse gases the following month but is set to finalize its figures by January 2022 and the process for regularly revising those numbers by next June.
"The current update to federal SC-GHG values is an important opportunity to address the United States' global responsibility to lead on aggressive action to stop climate change," Elizabeth Stanton, director and senior economist at AEC, said Tuesday.
In their analysis for FOE, Stanton and her AEC colleagues found that the social cost of CO2 calculates to at least 15 times the Biden administration's current figure of $51 per ton.
AEC's comment emphasizes that "the social costs of climate change--destroyed livelihoods and homes, negative health impacts and lost lives, reduced access to food sources and clean water--are a crucial input into the policy analysis that determines both how much the U.S. federal government is willing to spend on our behalf to avoid these serious, irreversible impacts and how little it should spend subsidizing fossil fuels."
As the analysis explains:
The United States alone emits more than 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2 every year. The consequences for underestimating the climate damage of a single added ton of greenhouse gas emissions are dire. The lower this value is set, the less the U.S. federal government spends on climate change mitigation," AEC adds. "This translates into less urgency and ambition applied to addressing the climate crisis and consequently more devastating impacts on lives and livelihoods in the United States--especially in environmental justice communities--and around the world--especially in developing countries.
The Biden administration's temporary estimates, the comment says, "represent a marked improvement over the Trump administration's open attempt to reduce the SC-GHGs to as close to zero dollars per ton as possible, effectively arguing that greenhouse gases result in little or no damage to human society."
However, the working group "must account more effectively for intergenerational and interregional equity (both within the United States and internationally), reduce the devaluation of future climate damages, and ensure that SC-GHG values are based on targets for holding temperature increases below levels identified by scientists as crucial to the continuation of human civilization as we know it," the analysis adds.
AEC and FOE's specific suggestions to the Biden administration include:
While recognizing that "a more complete update that follows the best science takes time," Heather Boushey, a member of Biden's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote on behalf of the working group co-chairs in February that "this administration will follow the science and listen to the experts."
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."
"People are being starved, children are being killed, families have lost everything," said the United Nations agency for Palestinian Refugees.
The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Monday that more than 100 children in Gaza have died of severe hunger during Israel's siege of the territory.
As Al Jazeera reported, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said that a total of 222 Palestinians have died from hunger during the siege, including 101 children. The vast majority of these deaths have come in just the last three weeks when the hunger crisis in Gaza started to garner international media attention, the ministry said.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on Monday emphasized the direness of the situation in a statement calling for a cease-fire to allow more aid into Gaza.
"People are being starved, children are being killed," the agency said. "Families have lost everything. Political will and leadership can stop an escalation and end the war. Every heartbeat counts."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that there is no starvation crisis in Gaza and has said such reports are part of a "fake" propaganda campaign waged by Israel's enemies.
However, it isn't just the Gaza Health Ministry warning of a hunger crisis in the region, as international charity Save the Children last week said that 43% of pregnant and breastfeeding women who showed up to its clinics in Gaza last month were malnourished, which represented a threefold increase since March, when the Israeli military imposed a total siege on the area.
The latest numbers about starvation in Gaza come as the Israeli government is pushing forward with a plan to fully invade and occupy Gaza, which experts have warned will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis among its people.
"If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction," said Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations assistant secretary general, over the weekend.
"If you will not stand down I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states," said Newsom.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday put U.S. President Donald Trump on notice that he is not messing around when it comes to plans to ruthlessly redraw his state's congressional districts.
In a letter sent to Trump, Newsom warned that he is ready to take the gloves off should Texas go through with a mid-decade gerrymander that independent analysts have estimated could net Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you can hope to make," he said. "This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy."
Newsom—a likely presidential candidate for 2028—emphasized that he believes congressional maps "should be drawn by independent, citizen-led efforts," but he said that the actions of Texas Republicans were leaving him with little choice.
"If you will not stand down I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states," he said. "But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it."
Newsom's office followed up this letter by sending a Trump-style all-caps post on X that reiterated the redistricting threat and finished up by writing, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER."
Democratic Texas state lawmakers last week fled the state in order to deny the GOP-led Legislature quorum to vote on a new congressional map that would take a hatchet to many districts currently held by Democratic representatives. Newsom has responded by threatening to undo his state's independent redistricting process through a special ballot initiative this fall so that the California Legislature can redraw the state map with a strong partisan gerrymander.