IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v30y2011i3p598-612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The social cost of trading: Measuring the increased damages from sulfur dioxide trading in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • David D. Henry III
  • Nicholas Z. Muller
  • Robert O. Mendelsohn

Abstract

The sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) cap and trade program established in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments is celebrated for reducing abatement costs ($0.7 to $2.1 billion per year) by allowing emissions allowances to be traded. Unfortunately, places with high marginal costs also tend to have high marginal damages. Ton‐for‐ton trading reduces emissions in low damage areas (rural) while increasing emissions in high damage areas (cities). From 2000 to 2007, conservative estimates of the value of mortality risk suggest that trades increased damages from $0.8 to $1.1 billion annually relative to the initial allowance allocation and from $1.5 to $1.9 billion annually relative to a uniform performance standard. With U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) values, trades increased damages from $2.4 to $3.2 billion annually compared to the initial allowance allocation and from $4.4 to $5.4 billion compared to a uniform performance standard. It is not clear that the ton‐for‐ton SO 2 cap and trade program is actually more efficient than comparable command and control programs. The trading program needs to be modified so that tons are weighted by their marginal damage. © 2011 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • David D. Henry III & Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert O. Mendelsohn, 2011. "The social cost of trading: Measuring the increased damages from sulfur dioxide trading in the United States," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 598-612, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:30:y:2011:i:3:p:598-612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2022. "Environmental consequences of natural gas wellhead pricing deregulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Jaramillo, Paulina & Muller, Nicholas Z., 2016. "Air pollution emissions and damages from energy production in the U.S.: 2002–2011," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 202-211.
    3. Chan, H. Ron & Chupp, B. Andrew & Cropper, Maureen & Muller, Nicholas Z., 2015. "The Net Benefits of the Acid Rain Program: What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-25, Resources for the Future.
    4. Andrew L. Goodkind & Jay S. Coggins & Julian D. Marshall, 2014. "A Spatial Model of Air Pollution: The Impact of the Concentration-Response Function," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 451-479.
    5. Holland, Stephen P. & Yates, Andrew J., 2015. "Optimal trading ratios for pollution permit markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 16-27.
    6. Tracy Snoddon, 2016. "Carbon Copies: The Prospects for an Economy-wide Carbon Price in Canada," e-briefs 247, C.D. Howe Institute.
    7. Joseph G. Schiavo & Robert Mendelsohn, 2019. "The Effect Of Domestic Air Pollution Mitigation And Fracking On Retirements Of Coal Power Plants," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(02), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Alex Hollingsworth & Taylor Jaworski & Carl Kitchens & Ivan J. Rudik, 2022. "Economic Geography and the Efficiency of Environmental Regulation," NBER Working Papers 29845, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Chan, H. Ron & Chupp, B. Andrew & Cropper, Maureen L. & Muller, Nicholas Z., 2018. "The impact of trading on the costs and benefits of the Acid Rain Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 180-209.
    10. Huang, Ching-Hsun & Bagdon, Benjamin A., 2018. "Quantifying environmental and health benefits of using woody biomass for electricity generation in the Southwestern United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 123-134.
    11. Stephen P. Holland & Erin T. Mansur & Nicholas Z. Muller & Andrew J. Yates, 2015. "Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?," NBER Working Papers 21291, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Stephen P. Holland & Erin T. Mansur & Nicholas Z. Muller & Andrew J. Yates, 2016. "Are There Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles? The Importance of Local Factors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(12), pages 3700-3729, December.
    13. Chan, Nathan W. & Morrow, John W., 2019. "Unintended consequences of cap-and-trade? Evidence from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 411-422.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:30:y:2011:i:3:p:598-612. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.