Designntrend.com quoted faculty fellow Billy Pizer on the need for a credible, regularly updated social cost of carbon estimate: "To ensure that value exists, it's important that we draw on the expertise of all government agencies, as well as independent experts in the field. This level of high-quality collaboration and peer review would decrease the likelihood of political factors interfering with the process, and ensure we have the most robust social cost of carbon."

ClimateWire reports that several former advisers to the Obama administration, including Nicholas Institute faculty fellow William Pizer, are recommending that the government change the way it establishes the social cost of carbon (SCC). The article references a Science article of which Pizer was lead author. Pizer and his coauthors recommend that the process of determining the SCC should undergo a public comment period and a review by the National Academy of Sciences. "It creates a little bit of a check on the government to somewhat limit the potential for politics to intervene in the process," Pizer said in an interview, noting that the scientific review could encourage administration officials to carefully deliberate the estimate.

Decision-makers are meeting through Dec. 12 at the 2014 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, to develop an agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers at the Nicholas Institiute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University and other institutions are urging the United States to regularly evaluate the social cost of carbon, an estimate of the per-metric-ton dollar value of reducing climate change damages.

In an article in Science, faculty fellow William Pizer and Environmental Economics Program director Brian Murray, along with other researchers, argue that the United States should adopt a standardized process to regularly evaluate the social cost of carbon (SCC), an estimate of the per-metric-ton dollar value of reducing climate change damages—a metric used in regulatory analysis. They say that a regularly monitored process for gauging the SCC is critical not only for domestic policy making but also for international climate negotiations.

In the latest issue of the journal Science, a group of economists, including faculty fellow Billy Pizer, and lawyers argue for several improvements in the U.S. government's social cost of carbon figure--namely, establishment of a regular, transparent, and peer-reviewed process to ensure the figure is reliable and well-supported by the latest facts.

Science Daily reports that a group of economists, including faculty fellow Billy Pizer, urge the U.S. government to make several improvements to its Social Cost of Carbon figure, thereby ensuring that the figure is reliable and well-supported by the latest facts.

In a University of Chicago News article, faculty fellow William Pizer commented on the need for a consistently used and rigorously maintained estimate of climate damages. “It’s important that we draw on the expertise of all government agencies, as well as independent experts in the field,” Pizer said. “This level of high-quality collaboration and peer review would decrease the likelihood of political factors interfering with the process, and ensure we have the most robust Social Cost of Carbon.” Pizer was lead author of a Science magazine article on the subject.

Interview of William Pizer: Le 12 novembre, lors d’une rencontre à Pékin, la Chine a déclaré avoir l’intention d’atteindre son pic d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre en 2030 avant d’entamer la descente. Les Etats-Unis, de leur côté, promettent de réduire leurs émissions de 26% à 28% par rapport à 2005 et ce, à l’horizon 2025.

The World Bank announced that it is moving away from funding coal projects, although it says it will make exceptions in the poorest places. Billy Pizer, faculty fellow at the Nicholas Institute, comments in an American Public Media Marketplace podcast.

Divest Duke and the Environmental Alliance convened a panel to discuss divestment and what it means to Duke University. The panel was comprised of graduate students and professors, including Tim Profeta, director of the Nicholas Institute, and Billy Pizer, faculty fellow of the Nicholas Institute and professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy. Their views were quoted in Duke’s daily newspaper, The Chronicle.