IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdh/ebrief/80.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Low-Carbon Fuel Standards: Driving in the Wrong Direction

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Dachis

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

Abstract

In pursuit of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, policymakers in some Canadian provinces are contemplating a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), a regulation that would require transportation fuel providers to distribute a mix of fuel that, on average, emitted a declining amount of GHG per unit of energy produced. This report examines the drawbacks of the LCFS concept and suggests that economy-wide measures would be a better way to reduce GHG emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Dachis, 2009. "Low-Carbon Fuel Standards: Driving in the Wrong Direction," e-briefs 80, C.D. Howe Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdh:ebrief:80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/low-carbon-fuel-standards-driving-wrong-direction
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 106-146, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thorsten V. Koeppl, 2009. "How Flexible Can Inflation Targeting Be? Suggestions for the Future of Canada's Targeting Regime," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 293, August.
    2. Pierre L. Siklos, 2009. "As Good As It Gets? The International Dimension to Canada's Monetary Policy Strategy Choices," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 292, July.
    3. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Speed Bump Ahead: Ottawa Should Drive Slowly on Clean Fuel Standards," e-briefs 279, C.D. Howe Institute.
    4. Gretchen Van Riesen, 2009. "The Pension Tangle: Achieving Greater Uniformity of Pension Legislation and Regulation in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 294, August.

    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. Böhringer, Christoph & Garcia-Muros, Xaquin & Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel & Rey, Luis, 2017. "US climate policy: A critical assessment of intensity standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 125-135.
    2. Mbéa Bell & Sylvain Dessy, 2017. "Market Power and Instrument Choice in Climate Policy," Cahiers de recherche 1704, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    3. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    4. Drabik, Dusan & de Gorter, Harry & Just, David R., 2010. "The Implications of Alternative Biofuel Policies on Carbon Leakage," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 102689, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Scheitrum, Daniel, 2017. "Renewable Natural Gas as a Solution to Climate Goals: Response to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard," MPRA Paper 77193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Becker, Jonathon M., 2021. "General equilibrium impacts on the U.S. economy of a disruption to Chinese cobalt supply," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Christoph Böhringer & Carolyn Fischer & Nicholas Rivers, 2023. "Intensity-Based Rebating of Emission Pricing Revenues," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1059-1089.
    8. Noel, Michael D. & Roach, Travis, 2017. "Marginal reductions in vehicle emissions under a dual-blend ethanol mandate: Evidence from a natural experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 45-54.
    9. Stephen Bahadar & Muhammad Nadeem & Rashid Zaman, 2023. "Toxic chemical releases and idiosyncratic return volatility: A prospect theory perspective," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2109-2143, June.
    10. Jean-Pierre Amigues & Ujjayant Chakravorty & Gilles Lafforgue & Michel Moreaux, 2022. "Comparing Volume and Blend Renewable Energy Mandates under a Carbon Budget," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 147, pages 51-78.
    11. Lu, Yunguo & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "National mitigation policy and the competitiveness of Chinese firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Mathias Reynaert, 2021. "Abatement Strategies and the Cost of Environmental Regulation: Emission Standards on the European Car Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 454-488.
    13. Lawrence H. Goulder & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "Interactions between State and Federal Climate Change Policies," NBER Chapters, in: The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy, pages 109-121, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Hirose, Kosuke & Ishihara, Akifumi & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Tax versus Regulations: Robustness to Polluter Lobbying Against Near-Zero Emission Targets," MPRA Paper 108380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Qiu, Cheng & Colson, Gregory & Wetzstein, Michael, 2014. "An ethanol blend wall shift is prone to increase petroleum gasoline demand," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 160-165.
    16. Plevin, Richard J. & Delucchi, Mark A. & O’Hare, Michael, 2017. "Fuel carbon intensity standards may not mitigate climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-97.
    17. Antonio M. Bento & Mark R. Jacobsen & Christopher R. Knittel & Arthur A. van Benthem, 2020. "Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Fuel-Economy Standards," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 129-157.
    18. Huseynov, Samir & Palma, Marco A., 2018. "Does California’s LCFS Reduce CO2 Emissions?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Creutzig, Felix & McGlynn, Emily & Minx, Jan & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2011. "Climate policies for road transport revisited (I): Evaluation of the current framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2396-2406, May.
    20. Don Fullerton & Chi L. Ta, 2022. "What Determines Effectiveness of Renewable Energy Standards? General Equilibrium Analytical Model and Empirical Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 9565, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic growth and innovation; cap-and-trade; transportation fuel providers;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • L91 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Transportation: General
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:cdh:ebrief:80. 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: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.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.