IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v27y2005i4p343-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does uncertainty justify intensity emission caps?

Author

Listed:
  • Quirion, Philippe

Abstract

Environmental policies often set ‘‘relative'' or ‘‘intensity'' emission caps, i.e. emission limits proportional to the polluting firm's output. One of the arguments put forth in favour of relative caps is based on the uncertainty on business-as-usual output: if the firm's production level is higher than expected, so will be business-as-usual emissions, hence reaching a given level of emissions will be more costly than expected.As a consequence, it is argued, a higher emission level should be allowed if the production level is moreimportant than expected. We assess this argument with a stochastic analytical model featuring two randomvariables: the business-as-usual emission level, proportional to output, and the slope of the marginalabatement cost curve.We compare the relative cap to an absolute cap and to a price instrument, in terms ofwelfare impact. It turns out that in most plausible cases, either a price instrument or an absolute cap yields ahigher expected welfare than a relative cap. Quantitatively, the difference in expected welfare is typically very small between the absolute and the relative cap but may be significant between the relative cap and the price instrument.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Quirion, Philippe, 2005. "Does uncertainty justify intensity emission caps?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 343-353, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:27:y:2005:i:4:p:343-353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(05)00038-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    2. Catherine Boemare & Philippe Quirion & Steve Sorrell, 2003. "The evolution of emissions trading in the EU: tensions between national trading schemes and the proposed EU directive," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 105-124, December.
    3. Hoel, Michael & Karp, Larry, 2001. "Taxes and quotas for a stock pollutant with multiplicative uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 91-114, October.
    4. Boemare, Catherine & Quirion, Philippe, 2002. "Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 213-230, December.
    5. Stavins, Robert N., 1996. "Correlated Uncertainty and Policy Instrument Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 218-232, March.
    6. Pizer, William A., 1999. "The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 255-287, August.
    7. Fischer, Carolyn, 2001. "Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards," Discussion Papers dp-01-22, Resources For the Future.
    8. Kolstad, Charles D., 2005. "The simple analytics of greenhouse gas emission intensity reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(17), pages 2231-2236, November.
    9. Roberts, Marc J. & Spence, Michael, 1976. "Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 193-208.
    10. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Relative standards: A positive and normative analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 17-38, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:resene:v:27:y:2005:i:4:p:343-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.