IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v50y2011i4p585-603.html

The Ancillary Benefits from Climate Policy in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Britt Groosman

  • Nicholas Muller

  • Erin O’Neill-Toy

Abstract

This study investigates the benefits to human health that would occur in the United States (U.S.) due to reductions in local air pollutant emissions stemming from a federal policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). In order to measure the impacts of reduced emissions of local pollutants, this study considers a representative U.S. climate policy. Specifically, the climate policy modeled in this analysis is the Warner-Lieberman bill (S.2191) of 2008 and the paper considers the impacts of reduced emissions in the transport and electric power sectors. This analysis provides strong evidence that climate change policy in the U.S. will generate significant returns to society in excess of the benefits due to climate stabilization. The total health-related co-benefits associated with a representative climate policy over the years 2006 to 2030 range between $90 and $725 billion in present value terms depending on modeling assumptions. The majority of avoided damages are due to reduced emissions of SO2 from coal-fired power plants. Among the most important assumptions is whether remaining coal-fired generation capacity is permitted to “backslide” up to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) cap on emissions. This analysis models two scenarios specifically related to this issue. Co-benefits increase from $90 billion, when the CAIR cap is met, to $256 billion if SO2 emissions are not permitted to exceed current emission rates. On a per ton basis, the co-benefit per ton of GHG emissions is projected to average between $2 and $14 ($2006). The per ton marginal abatement cost for the representative climate policy is estimated at $9 ($2006).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Britt Groosman & Nicholas Muller & Erin O’Neill-Toy, 2011. "The Ancillary Benefits from Climate Policy in the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 585-603, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:50:y:2011:i:4:p:585-603
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9483-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-011-9483-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-011-9483-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Espey, Molly, 1998. "Gasoline demand revisited: an international meta-analysis of elasticities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 273-295, June.
    2. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn & William Nordhaus, 2011. "Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1649-1675, August.
    3. repec:aen:journl:2007v28-01-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Daniel J. Graham & Stephen Glaister, 2002. "The Demand for Automobile Fuel: A Survey of Elasticities," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 36(1), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Dallas Burtraw & Alan Krupnick & Erin Mansur & David Austin & Deirdre Farrell, 1998. "Costs And Benefits Of Reducing Air Pollutants Related To Acid Rain," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(4), pages 379-400, October.
    6. Alfredo A. Romero, 2007. "Revisiting the Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand," Working Papers 63, Economics Department, William & Mary.
    7. Muller, Nicholas Z. & Mendelsohn, Robert, 2007. "Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Puller, Steven L. & Greening, Lorna A., 1999. "Household adjustment to gasoline price change: an analysis using 9 years of US survey data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 37-52, February.
    9. Viscusi, W Kip & Aldy, Joseph E, 2003. "The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 5-76, August.
    10. Brons, Martijn & Nijkamp, Peter & Pels, Eric & Rietveld, Piet, 2008. "A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2105-2122, September.
    11. repec:aen:journl:2008v29-01-a06 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, January.
    13. Mendelsohn, Robert, 1980. "An economic analysis of air pollution from coal-fired power plants," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 30-43, March.
    14. repec:reg:rpubli:282 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    16. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn, 2012. "Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right: Corrigendum (Mortality Rate Update)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 613-616, February.
    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. Nicholas Z. Muller, 2014. "Toward the Measurement of Net Economic Welfare: Air Pollution Damage in the US National Accounts–2002, 2005, 2008," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress, pages 429-459, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Muller Nicholas & Tong Daniel & Mendelsohn Robert, 2009. "Regulating NOx and SO2 Emissions in Atlanta," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-32, March.
    3. Shaw, Charles, 2020. "Econometric Analysis of Demand for Petrol in India, 1966-2019," MPRA Paper 104797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2005. "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1276-1289, September.
    5. Muller, Nicholas Z. & Mendelsohn, Robert, 2007. "Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Oueslati, Walid & Sintek, Christina, 2018. "The rebound effect in road transport: A meta-analysis of empirical studies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 163-179.
    7. Nicholas Z. Muller & Yan N. Oak, 2009. "Characterizing Uncertainty in Air Pollution Damage Estimates," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0918, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:aen:journl:ej35-4-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Xu, Yan & Dietzenbacher, Erik & Los, Bart, 2020. "International trade and air pollution damages in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2022. "Environmental consequences of natural gas wellhead pricing deregulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    12. Liddle, Brantley & Parker, Steven, 2022. "One more for the road: Reconsidering whether OECD gasoline income and price elasticities have changed over time," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    14. Natina Yaduma & Mika Kortelainen & Ada Wossink, 2013. "Estimating Mortality and Economic Costs of Particulate Air Pollution in Developing Countries: The Case of Nigeria," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 361-387, March.
    15. Javier D. Donna, 2021. "Measuring long‐run gasoline price elasticities in urban travel demand," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 945-994, December.
    16. Donna, Javier D., 2018. "Measuring Long-Run Price Elasticities in Urban Travel Demand," MPRA Paper 90059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Melo, Patricia C. & Ramli, Ahmad Razi, 2014. "Estimating fuel demand elasticities to evaluate CO2 emissions: Panel data evidence for the Lisbon Metropolitan Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-46.
    18. Matthew Cole & Robert Elliott & Joanne Lindley, 2009. "Dirty money: Is there a wage premium for working in a pollution intensive industry?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 161-180, October.
    19. Lehner, Stephan & Peer, Stefanie, 2019. "The price elasticity of parking: A meta-analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 177-191.
    20. Li, Na & Zhang, Xiaoling & Shi, Minjun & Hewings, Geoffrey J.D., 2019. "Does China's air pollution abatement policy matter? An assessment of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region based on a multi-regional CGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 213-227.
    21. David A. Keiser & Joseph K. Shapiro, 2018. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 17-wp571, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:kap:enreec:v:50:y:2011:i:4:p:585-603. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.