When Should Uncertain Nonpoint Emissions be Penalized in a Trading Program?
AbstractWhen nonpoint source pollution is stochastic and the damage function is convex, intuition might suggest it is more important to control a nonpoint pollution source than a point source. Earlier research has provided sufficient conditions such that the permit price for a unit of ex-ante expected emissions should be higher than the permit price for a unit of certain emissions. Herein we provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions such that this is the case. An approach to testing for the validity of the condition set is available, and has been applied to a related problem.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN with number 9805.
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
agricultural pollution; multiple inputs; permit trading; social optimality; trading ratio; water quality; Environmental Economics and Policy; Q1; Q2; D2; D8;
Other versions of this item:
- David A. Hennessy & Hongli Feng, 2008. "When Should Uncertain Nonpoint Emissions Be Penalized in a Trading Program?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 249-255.
- Hennessy, David A. & Feng, Hongli, 2008. "When Should Uncertain Nonpoint Emissions Be Penalized in a Trading Program?," Staff General Research Papers 12868, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
- Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
- D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations
- D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Smith, Craig M. & Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Leatherman, John C. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2012. "A Simulation of Factors Impeding Water Quality Trading," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2).
- Ghosh, Gaurav & Shortle, James, 2012. "Managing Pollution Risk through Emissions Trading," FCN Working Papers 1/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
- Hanson, James C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2008. "Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.