Bodoggle-Watt, which exposed bureaucratic?

Ross McKitrick's latest research shows that SCC manipulates political purposes

The Biden administration uses exaggerated agricultural damage estimates to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC), which has made a lot of efforts to justify broad climate policies. But in a new study, economist Ross McKitrick, one of the most acute ideas in climate policy doubt, has taken apart the basis of these exaggerated numbers to reveal climate What happens when shockism fits in real data.

The Biden administration has raised its carbon (SCC) estimates about five times the social cost, based in part on forecasts for global crop yield declines, estimating the basis of meta-analytic data first released in 2014. Variables (usually CO changes₂) Therefore, only 862 are available for multivariate regression modeling. By rechecking the underlying resources, I was able to recover 360 records and increase the sample size to 1222. The results of reanalysis of larger data sets yield very different results. While the original smaller dataset means that yields for all crop types will decline even at lower warming levels, global average yield changes are zero or positive in the full dataset, even if warming is 5°C.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90254-2

Of course, the whole concept of the social cost of carbon is a bureaucratic fantasy, a number that can be summoned by modelers who adjust discount rates, speculative damage functions and climate predictions until politically convenient answers are obtained. This is an arbitrary indicator designed to quantify the economic impact in the real world and to justify government interventions. That is, even Within McKitrick's research on this manipulated framework reveals how the game plays: If you follow their own rules, but use the full dataset, SCC appears much lower than Biden Administration's sky overestimation. In other words, if SCC is a legal measure (not), this article shows that they are still doing something wrong.

McKitrick's research, Extended crop yield meta-analysis data does not support upward SCC revisionsreveals how bureaucrats distort agricultural output forecasts to drive higher SCC estimates. What did he find? The so-called climate-related crop damage is exaggerated. In fact, global crop yields seem to remain stable, even increase in warm scenarios up to 5°C. This fundamentally undermines one of the key defenses that a massive SCC hike pushes Biden’s climate policy.

Let's break it down.

How to make a makeover in SCC

The SCC should measure economic losses per ton of CO2 emissions. Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised this estimate to an estimate of $220 per ton, nearly five times higher than the first $51 per ton of EPA of the first Trump administration. A large part of this growth comes from projected agricultural losses, Give Damage the model. Nearly half of the SCC estimates ($103 per ton) are based on assumed global food production losses due to warming.

But as McKitrick shows, these assumptions are based on poor data and flawed modeling.

Data Problem: Lost Numbers Become a Policy Driver

SCC estimates agricultural dependence in two studies:

• Challinor et al. (2014) (C14): Meta-analysis of crop yield simulations under climate change.
• Moore et al. (2017) (M17): Reanalysis of C14, but a more pessimistic view.

C14 actually suggests that warming associated with increased carbon dioxide may be produced Medium net income For crop yield. M17 uses the same data set but modifying the statistical method and suddenly finds a wide range of yields drops. Conveniently, this study became the primary opinion of the EPA on the justification for SCC hiking.

But this is the kicker: the dataset used for these calculations is incomplete. C14 initially contains 1,722 data points, but nearly half loses at least one key variable, which usually changes carbon dioxide levels. This leaves only 862 data points for regression modeling.

McKitrick struggled to reconstruct the lost data, increasing the sample size by 40% to 1,222 records. result? The doomsday production of the M17 has declined. Using the Fuller dataset, Even up to 5°C, global crop yields actually show zero to positive changes.

Carbon dioxide: Forgotten fertilizer

One of the biggest hands in climate agriculture modeling is the tendency to ignore well-documented benefits of CO2 fertilization. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow, and a large number of studies have shown that increased carbon dioxide can improve photosynthesis, improve water efficiency and increase crop yields.

M17 understates this by exerting a concave function on the fertilization of carbon dioxide, which actually assumes that its benefits drop sharply at higher levels. This assumption is doubtful at best, especially when real-world evidence suggests that carbon dioxide enrichment is beneficial even at higher concentrations.

McKitrick's findings suggest Once CO2 fertilization is correctly explained, the supposed catastrophic loss in food production disappears.

Bureaucratic SCC manipulation: policy-driven novel

SCC should be based on objective economic analysis. Instead, it has become a politically weaponized tool that provides the “right” answers to those who advocate aggressive climate policies.

Biden EPA's decision to increase SCC by fivefold is not based on new empirical evidence, which is based on Study on the cost of selective use of expanded carbon while ignoring the equilibrium benefits.

McKitrick's research shows that SCC (at least in terms of agricultural impact) can be much lower when using a complete dataset. If agricultural productivity stabilizes or increases, large-scale damages are expected to disappear, causing the SCC estimate to collapse.

Bottom line: SCC overestimation means bad policy

Ross McKitrick's research is a devastating blow to SCC bureaucratic inflation. It shows:

1. The Biden Administration’s SCC hike is based on a flawed and incomplete agricultural damage model.
2. Warming caused by carbon dioxide no Causes catastrophic yield declines; in fact, crop yields remain stable or increased even at 5°C.
3. The manipulated SCC numbers are used to justify extreme climate policies that undermine economic growth and energy security.

If we are to make reasonable policy decisions, we need an SCC that reflects reality, rather than exaggerating it for the service of the political agenda. McKitrick's work reminds you Bad data leads to bad policies, bad policies lead to unnecessary economic pain.

The next time you hear bureaucratic reasons to prove tough climate policy by citing “high carbon,” keep this in mind: all of this is based on smoke and mirrors.

McKitrick's complete paper can be found here.

Related