Op-Ed: How to Win a Court Case on ‘What a Reasonable Cost of Carbon Should Be’

first_imgOp-Ed: How to Win a Court Case on ‘What a Reasonable Cost of Carbon Should Be’ FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享John Abraham for The Guardian:In Minnesota, an administrative hearing resulted in a judicial recommendation that will have impacts across the country. It was a case argued mainly between environmental groups and energy producers regarding what a reasonable social cost of carbon should be.How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science.We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect.I hope that this case will serve as a standard for other utility commissions as they work through the complex issues of the cost of carbon pollution. I also hope that the high standards of science used in Minnesota will be reflected in other areas where similar cases arise. You can’t just bring in some contrarian scientists to make unsupported statements that minimize the costs of climate change.Full item: Peabody coal’s contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court caselast_img