IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

U.S. Interest Groups Prefer Emission Trading: A New Perspective

Listed author(s):
  • Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard

If there is to be environmental regulation, what kind of regulation would the main interest groups then prefer? This political distortion must be taken into account when designing future environmental regulation such as CO2 regulation. The three main interest groups in the U.S. (private business, environmentalist groups and the electricity sector) prefer a grandfathered permit market. Business is attracted by this solution because free initial distribution of permits both favours existing sources financially and, furthermore, creates a barrier to entry for new firms. Environmentalist groups have changed attitudes and promote the idea too as a way of negotiating higher target reduction levels with industry to maintain voluntary contributions from their members. Finally, electric utilities prefer a grandfathered permit market, and this step towards less planned economy may be explained by the rise of competition in the U.S. electricity sector. Therefore, it is suggested that a grandfathered permit market is a more effective policy than a tax in relation to organized interests such as industry, electric utilities and environmental organizations. In perspective, the grandfathered permit market may be mixed with the use of taxes. In the case of CO2 regulation, for example, taxes may be applied to badly organized polluters, such as households and the transport sector, because their lobbying power is weak. Copyright 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

If 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.

File URL:
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Public Choice.

Volume (Year): 101 (1999)
Issue (Month): 1-2 (October)
Pages: 109-128

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:101:y:1999:i:1-2:p:109-28
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:101:y:1999:i:1-2:p:109-28. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Rebekah McClure)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.