IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-04-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Absolute Emissions Better for Modeling? It's All Relative

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Carolyn

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Some environmental policies focus on emissions intensity rather than total emissions, or they try to mitigate the regulatory impact on the final product market. To analyze the effects of these policies, or to evaluate the distributional effects of any regulation on consumers and producers, output must be incorporated explicitly into an economic model of abatement, separately from the emissions variable. This provides two options. Traditionally, total emissions and output are the independently controlled variables, leaving emissions intensity as endogenously determined. Alternatively, one can make emissions intensity and output the control variables, leaving total emissions as the endogenously determined variable. One is the dual of the other and the problems are equivalent, but the latter method offers more transparency for examining intensity-based policies. This note shows how the intensity-based model fits into the traditional context.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Carolyn, 2004. "Are Absolute Emissions Better for Modeling? It's All Relative," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-14, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-04-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-04-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dissou, Yazid, 2005. "Cost-effectiveness of the performance standard system to reduce CO2 emissions in Canada: a general equilibrium analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 187-207, October.
    2. Sterner, Thomas & Hoglund Isaksson, Lena, 2006. "Refunded emission payments theory, distribution of costs, and Swedish experience of NOx abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 93-106, April.
    3. Gersbach, Hans & Requate, Till, 2004. "Emission taxes and optimal refunding schemes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 713-725, March.
    4. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2006. "Ex Post Evaluation of an Earmarked Tax on Air Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 68-84.
    5. Bernard, Alain & Fischer, Carolyn & Vielle, Marc, 2001. "Is There a Rationale for Rebating Environmental Levies?," Discussion Papers 10512, Resources for the Future.
    6. Christoph Böhringer & Andreas Lange, 2005. "Economic Implications of Alternative Allocation Schemes for Emission Allowances," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(3), pages 563-581, September.
    7. Bernard, Alain L. & Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2007. "Is there a rationale for output-based rebating of environmental levies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 83-101, May.
    8. Carolyn Fischer, 2003. "Combining rate-based and cap-and-trade emissions policies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 89-103, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fischer, Carolyn, 2011. "Market power and output-based refunding of environmental policy revenues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 212-230, January.
    2. Cathrine Hagem & Michael Hoel & Thomas Sterner, 2020. "Refunding Emission Payments: Output-Based Versus Expenditure-Based Refunding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 641-667, November.
    3. Hagem, Cathrine & Hoel, Michael & Holtsmark, Bjart & Sterner, Thomas, 2015. "Refunding Emissions Payments," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-05, Resources for the Future.
    4. Heimvik, Arild, 2020. "Refunded emission payments scheme – a cost-efficient and politically acceptable instrument for reduction of NOx-emissions?," Working Papers in Economics 2/20, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    5. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-49, Resources for the Future.
    6. Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan, 2004. "Output-Based Allocations of Emissions Permits: Efficiency and Distributional Effects in a General Equilibrium Setting with Taxes and Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-37, Resources for the Future.
    7. Gren, Ing-Marie & Höglind, Lisa & Jansson, Torbjörn, 2021. "Refunding of a climate tax on food consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    9. Meunier, Guy & Montero, Juan-Pablo & Ponssard, Jean-Pierre, 2018. "Output-based allocations in pollution markets with uncertainty and self-selection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 832-851.
    10. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew & Eckert, Heather, 2018. "Carbon pricing with an output subsidy under imperfect competition: The case of Alberta's restructured electricity market," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 102-123.
    11. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2011. "Output-based allocation and investment in clean technologies," Discussion Papers 644, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Schmidt, Robert C. & Heitzig, Jobst, 2014. "Carbon leakage: Grandfathering as an incentive device to avert firm relocation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 209-223.
    13. Fischer, Carolyn, 2005. "Project-based mechanisms for emissions reductions: balancing trade-offs with baselines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(14), pages 1807-1823, September.
    14. Halvor Briseid Storrøsten & Christoph Böhringer & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2015. "Smart hedging against carbon leakage," Discussion Papers 822, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. Christoph Böhringer & Brita Bye & Taran Fæhn & Rosendahl Knut Einar, 2014. "Output-based rebating of carbon taxes in the neighbor’s backyard," Working Papers V-382-15, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2014.
    16. Ioanna Pantelaiou & Panos Hatzipanayotou & Panagiotis Konstantinou & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2020. "Can Cleaner Environment Promote International Trade? Environmental Policies as Export Promoting Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 809-833, April.
    17. Julie Rozenberg & Stéphane Hallegatte & Adrien Vogt-Schilb & Olivier Sassi & Céline Guivarch & Henri Waisman & Jean Charles Hourcade, 2010. "Climate policies as a hedge against the uncertainty on future oil supply," Working Papers hal-00866449, HAL.
    18. Christoph Böhringer & Brita Bye & Taran Fæhn & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2017. "Output‐based rebating of carbon taxes in a neighbour's backyard: Competitiveness, leakage and welfare," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 426-455, May.
    19. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    20. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    emissions intensity; emissions standards; environmental tax; pollution; tradable emissions permits;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-04-14. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.