IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/renvpo/v10y2016i2p245-263..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Policy Benefits in U.S. Regulatory Analyses: Domestic versus Global Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Ted Gayer
  • W. Kip Viscusi

Abstract

Although benefit assessment principles are well established for specific populations, very little attention has been paid to how to define the scope of the pertinent population for such assessments. Whose social welfare matters and whose benefits should be included in the assessment? Should there be any linkage between the benefits and the political jurisdiction of the citizens paying for the policy? In the case of U.S. regulatory policies, the norm has been to assess the benefits to U.S. citizens. However, in 2010, the Obama administration’s Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon adopted a global perspective on assessing the benefits associated with reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. This article examines whether U.S. policymakers should assess the benefits of climate change policies from a domestic or a global perspective. Drawing from executive orders and the laws governing risk and environmental regulations, we review the norms used for the scope of benefit assessments. Then we examine specific examples of the use of the global approach to benefit assessments of carbon dioxide reductions for energy efficiency regulations. We also compare the U.S. approach to that of other developed countries. Finally, we discuss how reciprocity should be incorporated into global benefits within a benefit–cost framework, and the role of altruism in considering the proper scope of benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Ted Gayer & W. Kip Viscusi, 2016. "Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Policy Benefits in U.S. Regulatory Analyses: Domestic versus Global Approaches," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 245-263.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:renvpo:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:245-263.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reep/rew002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Smith & Nils Axel Braathen, 2015. "Monetary Carbon Values in Policy Appraisal: An Overview of Current Practice and Key Issues," OECD Environment Working Papers 92, OECD Publishing.
    2. Scott Farrow & W. Kip Viscusi, 2013. "Towards principles and standards for the benefit–cost analysis of safety," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 5, pages 172-193, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Ta-Ken Huang, 2022. "Evaluation of Benefits and Health Co-Benefits of GHG Reduction for Taiwan’s Industrial Sector under a Carbon Charge in 2023–2030," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2019. "Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    3. Ravago, Majah-Leah & Fabella, Raul & Alonzo, Ruperto & Danao, Rolando & Mapa, Dennis, 2016. "Filipino 2040 Energy: Power Security and Competitiveness," MPRA Paper 87721, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2018.
    4. Alexander R. Barron & Allen A. Fawcett & Marc A. C. Hafstead & James R. Mcfarland & Adele C. Morris, 2018. "Policy Insights From The Emf 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-47, February.
    5. Tol, Richard S.J., 2019. "A social cost of carbon for (almost) every country," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 555-566.
    6. Cary Coglianese & Shana M. Starobin, 2020. "Social Science and the Analysis of Environmental Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(5), pages 578-604, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guendalina Anzolin & Amir Lebdioui, 2021. "Three Dimensions of Green Industrial Policy in the Context of Climate Change and Sustainable Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(2), pages 371-405, April.
    2. Burgess David F. & Zerbe Richard O., 2013. "The most appropriate discount rate," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 391-400, December.
    3. Lint Barrage, 2019. "The Nobel Memorial Prize for William D. Nordhaus," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 884-924, July.
    4. Stéphane Hallegatte, 2008. "A Proposal for a New Prescriptive Discounting Scheme: The Intergenerational Discount Rate," Working Papers 2008.47, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    6. Oliver Schenker, 2013. "Exchanging Goods and Damages: The Role of Trade on the Distribution of Climate Change Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 261-282, February.
    7. Alejandro Lopez-Feldman, 2013. "Climate change, agriculture, and poverty: A household level analysis for rural Mexico," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1126-1139.
    8. Bikki Jaggi & Alessandra Allini & Riccardo Macchioni & Annamaria Zampella, 2018. "Do investors find carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1031-1056, May.
    9. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    10. Richard Tol, 2011. "Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 827-839, October.
    11. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    12. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.
    13. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    14. Maxmillan Martin & Yi hyun Kang & Motasim Billah & Tasneem Siddiqui & Richard Black & Dominic Kniveton, 2017. "Climate-influenced migration in Bangladesh: The need for a policy realignment," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35, pages 357-379, October.
    15. Dietz, Simon & Gollier, Christian & Kessler, Louise, 2018. "The climate beta," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 258-274.
    16. Stefano Bartolini & Francesco Sarracino, 2021. "Happier and Sustainable. Possibilities for a post-growth society," Department of Economics University of Siena 855, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    17. Sheng, Yu & Xu, Xinpeng, 2019. "The productivity impact of climate change: Evidence from Australia's Millennium drought," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 182-191.
    18. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    19. Mr. Jon Strand, 2007. "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Supply for the G-7 Countries, with Emphasis on Germany," IMF Working Papers 2007/299, International Monetary Fund.
    20. Reinhard Mechler & Stefan Hochrainer & Asbjørn Aaheim & Håkon Salen & Anita Wreford, 2010. "Modelling economic impacts and adaptation to extreme events: Insights from European case studies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 737-762, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:renvpo:v:10:y:2016:i:2:p:245-263.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aereeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.