Pollution Control: When, and How, to be Precautious
The precautionary principle (PP) applied to environmental policy stipulates that, in the presence of physical uncertainty, society must take robust preventive action to guard against worst-case outcomes. It follows that the higher the degree of uncertainty, the more aggressive this preventive action should be. This normative maxim is explored in the case of a stylized dynamic model of pollution control under Knightian uncertainty. At time 0 a decision-maker makes a one-time investment in damage-control technology and subsequently decides on a desirable dynamic emissions policy. Adopting the robust control framework of Hansen and Sargent , we investigate optimal damage-control and mitigation policies. We show that optimal investment in damage control is always increasing in the degree of uncertainty, thus confirming the conventional PP wisdom. Optimal mitigation decisions, however, need not always comport with the PP and we provide analytical conditions that sway the relationship one way or the other. This result is interesting when contrasted to a model with fixed damage-control technology, in which it can be easily shown that a PP vis-a-vis mitigation unambiguously holds. We conduct a set of numerical experiments to determine the sensitivity of our results to specific functional forms of damage-control cost. We find that when the cost of damage-control technology is low enough, damage-control investment and mitigation may act as substitutes and a PP with respect to the latter can be unambiguously irrational.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan|
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Takao Asano, 2010. "Precautionary Principle and the Optimal Timing of Environmental Policy Under Ambiguity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 173-196, October.
- Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2001.
RCER Working Papers
485, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Giannis Vardas & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2010.
"Model Uncertainty, Ambiguity and the Precautionary Principle: Implications for Biodiversity Management,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 379-404, March.
- Vardas, Giannis & XEPAPADEAS, Anastasios, 2008. "Model Uncertainty, Ambiguity and the Precautionary Principle: Implications for Biodiversity Management," MPRA Paper 10236, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Hoel, Michael & Karp, Larry, 2001.
"Taxes versus Quotas for a Stock Pollutant,"
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series
qt5fx9p7kf, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Fidel Gonzalez, 2008. "Precautionary Principle and Robustness for a Stock Pollutant with Multiplicative Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 25-46, September.
- Dockner Engelbert J. & Van Long Ngo, 1993. "International Pollution Control: Cooperative versus Noncooperative Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 13-29, July.
- Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J. & Turmuhambetova, Gauhar & Williams, Noah, 2006. "Robust control and model misspecification," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 45-90, May.
- Catarina Roseta-Palma & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2004. "Robust Control in Water Management," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 21-34, 07.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2011.18. 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: (barbara racah)
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.