mhaze,

Saying that it's "all pain, no gain" is just a conclusion without an argument.

Every major regulatory impact assessment includes quantified benefits: reduced health costs from lower particulate exposure, avoided extreme weather damage, reduced heat mortality, agricultural stability, insurance risk reduction.

You may disagree with how those are calculated, and that would be a legitimate debate.

But claiming there are no economic benefits at all requires arguing that climate impacts impose zero cost and that pollution reduction has no health value. That's an empirical claim - and an extraordinary one at that.

If the benefits are overstated, show how. If the social cost of carbon is miscalculated, demonstrate it.

But "there aren't any" is not a rebuttal. It's a refusal to engage the evidence.

Well it was just an attempt to get you to come to the party for once with some evidence of your own. But alas we just get more of the demands that others provide the data which you then nit-pick.

mhaze,

You asserted there are "no economic benefits". That's a positive claim about measurable effects.

It isn't nit-picking to ask for evidence when someone makes an absolute statement.

Regulatory impact assessments from multiple administrations quantify benefits from reduced particulate pollution, avoided heat mortality, and lower disaster costs. You may dispute those calculations - fair enough. But saying they don't exist at all requires showing why those quantified benefits are invalid.

If you want the methodology, I'm happy to go there. But simply declaring "all pain, no gain" and then objecting when asked for support isn't an evidentiary argument.

oops, typo.... rereading my post it said $4.5T. The correct figure is $1.5T.

That's nett.

Not a problem at all, mhaze.

If the figure is $1.5T net, then it depends entirely on the assumptions used to calculate avoided climate damages and health co-benefits.

Which social cost of carbon was applied?
What discount rate?
What damage projections were included or excluded?

"Net" isn't a raw number. It's the output of methodological choices.

If you think those assumptions are flawed, then that's a discussion worth having. But simply citing the headline figure doesn't settle the underlying economic question.