date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:21:54 -0000
from: "Ian Bateman" <I.BatemanatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: cost of carbon
to: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Thanks for this. I did look at a variety of literature but the Fankhauser
work seemed far more convincing in terms of the physical science
underpinning it - most of the economic models seemed to be based on awful
science. That sadi the figures are based on about 1992 which means that they
should be inflated somewhat to todays levels - but not that much. Best guess
would be about �35-40 - which I guess is not that much lower than the Shell
value - but lots less than the opening auction bids.
When we get a chance (if ever) lets talk it over
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: cost of carbon
Thanks for the reprint. Good to know what work you've been doing.
One quick comment - I know its not central to your outcome, but the adopted
(Fankhauser) C value of about $25 per tonne seems very low to me. The
opening price in the UK emissions trading auction this year is at
�100/tonne, although it may well trade below that. And elsewhere, Shell
have been embedding costs of $60/tonne into their business planning.
Probably just shows that we have no sound basis for valuing C at the