Assuming your $50 per ton cost is right, let's estimate benefit:
Method 1:
(1) World GDP / Wold CO2 emission = $88 trillion / 9.795 gigaton = $9,000 per ton CO2 >>>>> $50 cost estimate
Method 2:
(2) 1 ton CO2 / (CO2 breath per person) = 3 human lives per ton of CO2
OK, don't like the math? Let's refine Method 1:
(3) (World GDP - World GDP using 100% non-CO2 emitting energy) / World CO2 Emission
Guess what, can't do it, there is no method to get to 0 CO2 emission.
But the problem is the same: until you estiamte (3), the $50 figure is irrelevant.
Chapter 2 No one is willing to figure out Chap 1, but the $50 cost is still an externality that needs to be paid for, How to pay for it?
Idea 1: Paris Accord，well, it's clearly not enough, and makes no sense with no enforcement mechanism
Idea 2: Cap and Trade, you can't cap Africa. How is it fair to permanently limit Africa and Europe to the current state?
Also, you have an attribution problem. Let's say China exports 80% of its manufacturing to the world, then why should China pay for the world's consumption?
Idea 3: Carbon Tax of $50 per ton
(a) no distorted incentives, unproductive activity (benefit < $50) will be reduced, breathing can be preserved, steaks will cost more etc.
(b) solves attribution problem, China is charged $50, but the buyer of Chinese exports will shoulder the cost in higher prices
All assuming the proceeds used to replace CO2 emitting energy source
Chapter 3 Ideal Worlds Do Not Exist
- What's the cost of monitoring and collecting the tax / prohibiting emission?
- What political structure is needed for cross-border enforcement?
- What consequences are there for such political structure and world government?
Don't think these problems can be solved
Chapter 4 What can be done?
Lower the cost of non CO2 emitting energy as fast as possible
When it's cheaper, people will switch without coercion
Technology is the best answer
If you can't...... government subsidy aka Germany
How much? Say $50 per ton of CO2 emission.
Example：The average commute in the U.S. is 15-16 miles, one way. According to the EPA, the average passenger vehicle emits about 404 grams of CO2 per mile or about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per yea。
So 4.6 * 50 = $230 per year. Assuming 12 year life: $230*12=$2760, subsidy per electric car.
But electricity source is > 50% fossil fuel, so electric car subsidy should be <= $2760 * 0.5 = $1380.
What's the actual subsidy? $2500-$7500 by the IRS, WAY TO HIGH.
美国在巴黎协定里说要为治理暖化贡献30亿(3 billion). 看起来很多，但要比一比美国因暖化造成的社会损失，连个零头都算不上。
二氧化碳的破坏平衡的排放是在工业化以后，咱们就只从1960年算起。 美国每年排放 5 billion (50亿) 吨二氧化碳[1]。 现在估计二氧化碳所造成的社会负担是每吨50 美金 （公认是低估的价格）。 [2] 。 也就是1960年到现在美国应该为释放的二氧化碳负担5 billion 吨 x60 年 x 50 美金/吨 = 15000 billion 美金
美国2017年给了石油业649 Billion 补贴 [3]， 也是美国为巴黎协定承诺的200倍以上。 当然中国的补贴更多，我们应该敦促中国多做努力， 但是美国自己退出巴黎协定是很不负责任的行为。
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States
[2] https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution
[3] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
如果再不服的话，就请拿出他在这方面发表的论文（不是随便一个报纸杂志的评论文章）来讨论讨论--如果你能找的到的话。
更不要说$50的算法根本不是什么共识。
你倒是说说美国到底花了多少钱降碳？ 有没有15000billion? 退15步说， 有没有1000 billion ?
所以，根本就不用跟你辩论事实了，因为无逻辑的人，也是搞不明白事实的。
每次写的东西，都是满篇荒唐。
川普不是呼吁大家谈个新协议出来吗？
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
中国却在达标的路上。
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
三个值，
一个是一年美国要付出的金额，基本确定是打水漂的。不过要宣传得好像能获得1000倍的回报似的。
一个是十年的补贴。这个补贴是打水漂了吗？你知道这些补贴对美国的帮助吗？
一个是近60年的负担。很好奇，这个负担是怎么算出来的。简单看了一下，原来洪水，飓风，疾病，海平面上涨，以及其他灾害都算。好像，如果没有二氧化碳，这世界就什么灾难都没了？哇~~~~~~
石油本来就赚钱，为什么还要补贴？
才能加强对科技与政策的投入。 美国退出巴黎协定是与这个必要背道而驰的。
你愿意不洗热水澡，不开空调，不要电脑，天天走路去工作购物访友？
包括你所用的生活用品，加工的食物，享受的服务，后面都是满满的二氧化碳！
你如果不愿意放弃，给多少钱都没用！
Chapter 1: Cost/Benefit Analysis
Assuming your $50 per ton cost is right, let's estimate benefit:
Method 1:
(1) World GDP / Wold CO2 emission = $88 trillion / 9.795 gigaton = $9,000 per ton CO2 >>>>> $50 cost estimate
Method 2:
(2) 1 ton CO2 / (CO2 breath per person) = 3 human lives per ton of CO2
OK, don't like the math? Let's refine Method 1:
(3) (World GDP - World GDP using 100% non-CO2 emitting energy) / World CO2 Emission
Guess what, can't do it, there is no method to get to 0 CO2 emission.
But the problem is the same: until you estiamte (3), the $50 figure is irrelevant.
Chapter 2 No one is willing to figure out Chap 1, but the $50 cost is still an externality that needs to be paid for, How to pay for it?
Idea 1: Paris Accord，well, it's clearly not enough, and makes no sense with no enforcement mechanism
Idea 2: Cap and Trade, you can't cap Africa. How is it fair to permanently limit Africa and Europe to the current state?
Also, you have an attribution problem. Let's say China exports 80% of its manufacturing to the world, then why should China pay for the world's consumption?
Idea 3: Carbon Tax of $50 per ton
(a) no distorted incentives, unproductive activity (benefit < $50) will be reduced, breathing can be preserved, steaks will cost more etc.
(b) solves attribution problem, China is charged $50, but the buyer of Chinese exports will shoulder the cost in higher prices
All assuming the proceeds used to replace CO2 emitting energy source
Chapter 3 Ideal Worlds Do Not Exist
- What's the cost of monitoring and collecting the tax / prohibiting emission?
- What political structure is needed for cross-border enforcement?
- What consequences are there for such political structure and world government?
Don't think these problems can be solved
Chapter 4 What can be done?
Lower the cost of non CO2 emitting energy as fast as possible
When it's cheaper, people will switch without coercion
Technology is the best answer
If you can't...... government subsidy aka Germany
How much? Say $50 per ton of CO2 emission.
Example：The average commute in the U.S. is 15-16 miles, one way. According to the EPA, the average passenger vehicle emits about 404 grams of CO2 per mile or about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per yea。
So 4.6 * 50 = $230 per year. Assuming 12 year life: $230*12=$2760, subsidy per electric car.
But electricity source is > 50% fossil fuel, so electric car subsidy should be <= $2760 * 0.5 = $1380.
What's the actual subsidy? $2500-$7500 by the IRS, WAY TO HIGH.
第二，说过很多遍，降碳不是要彻底改变现有生活方式 （我做我能做的，但这是小头）。
第三，目前降碳的手段是改变能源的来源和在工业上节能。
负责任。
2。即使达不到零碳也要大幅降下来 。
把天朝和美帝的排放量拿来比较，才算数。搞选择性失明，调侃别人智商，丢脸的是您自己。
做学问做到这个地步，就是自毁，怨不得别人。
这些人根本没有能力或意愿去理解科学或事实，只是在用情感大吼大叫而已。
人类的历史就是一直这样的重复 － 智慧与愚昧的对抗（而且智慧常常落于下风）。
合理算应该算到发达国家那里的