Environmental Economics

You keep trying to change the definition of transparency to mean something it isn’t. Transparency does not mean making something where everyone can form an opinion on it. Transparency means that everyone can see it, whether or not they can form an opinion on what they have seen is based on their knowledge base. The results of a poll on the SCC would not be an accurate view of the general populace on their value of the environment and its future, it would be based on their ignorance of the SCC. That ignorance does not exist because of a lack of transparency, it exists because of a lack of interest and knowledge base of the public.

I’m not for eliminating fossil fuels, so your “straw man” doesn’t hold up. It must be a part of our energy consumption bundle for the foreseeable future. What I am for is the price of fossil fuels to be properly represented in the market. The SCC is a necessary part of that process.
The problem with your definition of transparency is that you think transparency in the case of the SCC means both the persons calculating it making their calculations available and everyone else involved seeing and understanding those calculations. Transparency does not work like that. The SCC is transparent because the calculations are there to look at for whomever wants to see them. That there has been little interest in the public to see them (and therefore the demand for the media to make them public isn’t there), and the public wouldn’t understand it if they did see the calculations has no effect on whether or not they are transparent. Transparency is a one way street. An open house at a school is an attempt by that school to be transparent. It is transparent if it opens the doors for those who want to see how it operates. That transparency is not affected if no one shows up to look.
Now to your argument that the media is biased and is hiding this from the public. The media is biased, they are biased towards things that will get people to watch or read their product. If the public demands it, the media will report on it. I don’t know about you, but even those people who are concerned about climate change aren’t really clamoring for the inner workings of calculating SCC. Why would the media report something in detail when no one is interested in viewing it?

I’m not familiar with Dr. Whitehead, I came here because I was in the AEDE program at The Ohio State University. If anything, the person that seems to follow Dr. Whitehead around is you. I’ve seen you comment almost on every post of his that goes into climate change.
No, I don’t think Sen. Barrasso is alone, but he is just one member of our representative government. If you want your valuations of things like carbon and the environment to win out, then you can vote in other people. That your side is not in control does not necessarily mean that the SCC valuation is not transparent. Go back to my open house example, are you really saying that if no one showed up to the open house that the school is guilty of not being transparent? If the answer is no, then why are you accusing those that have calculated the SCC and have made the information available of not being transparent. You do not get to change the definition of the word transparent, no matter how much you try to paint me as having a position (being for no fossil fuel use) or a bias (being a follower of Dr. Whitehead) that I do not have.

I saw your original view of transparency. It is wrong. The original post we argued about talked about how the SCC was transparent, but even then some members of Congress didn’t understand it (thus my car example in that post. My car is transparent because I can open up the hood and look inside, but I would have no clue what I was looking at on most of the parts. The only way it would not be transparent is if I couldn’t open it at all). Now your new argument is “But the media isn’t reporting it” as if it is some conspiracy. Even if the media isn’t reporting it, that does not take away from the transparency of the SCC because the details are out there for anyone who wants to look. That’s why you argument over transparency is disingenuous. It has nothing to do with who’s valuation is right, but it does have everything to do with the definition of transparency and whether the people involved in the valuation process made the information available (thus my open house example, the school is being transparent even if no one comes to look). Making statements about “tipping points”, accusations about my hatred of fossil fuels, or insinuations that I am biased by some imagined relationship with Dr. Whitehead will not change the definition of transparency. You are at this point using it as an attack word even when it doesn’t fit the actual situation (in a similar way as people use “socialism” to attack things that aren’t in the least bit socialist).

At Switchboard (the NRDA staff blog):
“Critics are complaining that there was no opportunity for the public to comment on the SCC update. Some are also charging the administration with inflating the number to justify stronger pollution standards, and with doing a runaround on Congress by having the EPA set standards. These are all red herrings.” … continued …

You opinion of transparency does not fit the current use of it with regard to actions by our government. You and John can continue this with Sen. Barrasso  if you like. I sent this to John awhile back. It might be something you should also read. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/06/06/white-house-revises-dubious-social-cost-of-carbon/
It's part of my  mission to turn John to the dark side. I believe John said the author Robert Murphy was once on his
side.
Regards

You can argue the definition of the word as long as you want but you are wrong with respect to it's current use in todays political discussion. You are hung up on the word and missing the point.

No, because we are talking about your use of the word in a very specific case where your definition of it does not fit the reality of the case. You said in a previous post (when Dr. Whitehead brought up the White Box)that the SCC was not transparent and gave a very specific reason that it was not transparent. The problems are
1. The post’s definition of the word transparent in regards to the topic was different than what you tried to change it to be,
2. You argued that the SCC calculations were not made public when they were.
So, you argued that that the “box” in question was a “black box” even though the SCC is not a “black box” by definition. You now keep pushing this idea of some other type of transparency, but this conversation is about your use of the term on this very specific subject where it has been shown that the SCC fits the definition of transparency unless we allow you to change the definition to include “to make a certain group of people (those who can’t understand it because they don’t have the knowledge base) understand it” and “also to inform people who have no interest in it even though they have no interest in getting informed about it”. If we were to accept your definition, then nothing could ever be transparent.