IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mee/wpaper/0705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • S. Paltsev
  • J. Reilly
  • H. Jacoby
  • A. Gurgel
  • G. Metcalf
  • A. Sokolov
  • J. Holak

Abstract

The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis model is applied to an assessment of a set of cap-and-trade proposals being considered by the U.S. Congress in spring 2007. The bills specify emissions reductions to be achieved through 2050 for the standard six-gas basket of greenhouse gases. They fall into two groups: one specifies emissions reductions of 50% to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; the other establishes a tightening target for emissions intensity and stipulates a time path for a "safety valve" limit on the emission price that approximately stabilizes U.S. emissions at the 2008 level. A set of three synthetic emissions paths are defined that span the range of stringency of these proposals, and these "core" cases are analyzed for their consequences in terms of emissions prices, effects on energy markets, welfare cost, the potential revenue generation if allowances are auctioned and the gains if permit revenue were used to reduce capital or labor taxes. Initial period prices for the first group of proposals, in carbon dioxide equivalents, are estimated between $30 and $50 per ton CO2-e depending on where each falls in the 50% to 80% range, with these prices rising by a factor of four by 2050. Welfare costs are less than 0.5% at the start, rising in the most stringent case to near 2% in 2050. If allowances were auctioned these proposals could produce revenue between $100 billion and $500 billion per year depending on the case. Emissions prices for the second group, which result from the specified safety-valve path, rise from $7 to $40 over the study period, with welfare effects rising from near zero to approximately a 0.5% loss in 2050. Revenue in these proposals depends on how many allowances are freely distributed. To analyze these proposals assumptions must be made about mitigation effort abroad, and simulations are provided to illuminate terms-of-trade effects that influence the emissions prices and welfare effects, and even the environmental effectiveness, of U.S. actions. Sensitivity tests also are provided of several of the design features imposed in the "core" scenarios including the role of banking, the specification of less than complete coverage of economic sectors, and the development of international permit trading. Also, the effects of alternative assumptions about nuclear power development are explored. Of particular importance in these simulations is the role of biofuels, and analysis is provided of the implications of these proposals for land use and agriculture. Finally, the U.S. proposals, and the assumptions about effort elsewhere, are extended to 2100 to allow exploration of the potential role of these bills in the longer-term challenge of reducing climate change risk. Simulations using the MIT Integrated System Model show that the 50% to 80% targets are consistent with global goals of atmospheric stabilization at 450 to 550 ppmv CO2 but only if other nations, including the developing countries, follow.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Paltsev & J. Reilly & H. Jacoby & A. Gurgel & G. Metcalf & A. Sokolov & J. Holak, 2007. "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," Working Papers 0705, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mee:wpaper:0705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2007-005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Reilly, Marcus Sarofim, Sergey Paltsev and Ronald Prinn, 2006. "The Role of Non-CO2 GHGs in Climate Policy: Analysis Using the MIT IGSM," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 503-520.
    2. Henry D. Jacoby & Richard S. Eckaus & A. Denny Ellerman & Ronald G. Prinn & David M. Reiner & Zili Yang, 1997. "CO2 Emissions Limits: Economic Adjustments and the Distribution of Burdens," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 31-58.
    3. J. Reilly & R. Prinn & J. Harnisch & J. Fitzmaurice & H. Jacoby & D. Kicklighter & J. Melillo & P. Stone & A. Sokolov & C. Wang, 1999. "Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol," Nature, Nature, vol. 401(6753), pages 549-555, October.
    4. Jacoby, Henry D. & Ellerman, A. Denny, 2004. "The safety valve and climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 481-491, March.
    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. Babiker, Mustafa H. & Metcalf, Gilbert E. & Reilly, John, 2003. "Tax distortions and global climate policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 269-287, September.
    2. Viguier, Laurent L. & Babiker, Mustafa H. & Reilly, John M., 2003. "The costs of the Kyoto Protocol in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 459-481, April.
    3. Sergey PALTSEV & John REILLY & Trent YANG, 2010. "Air Pollution Health Effects: Toward an Integrated Assessment," EcoMod2004 330600109, EcoMod.
    4. Webster, Mort & Paltsev, Sergey & Reilly, John, 2010. "The hedge value of international emissions trading under uncertainty," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1787-1796, April.
    5. Babiker, Mustafa & Gurgel, Angelo & Paltsev, Sergey & Reilly, John, 2009. "Forward-looking versus recursive-dynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: A comparison," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1354, November.
    6. Webster, Mort & Paltsev, Sergey & Reilly, John, 2008. "Autonomous efficiency improvement or income elasticity of energy demand: Does it matter?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2785-2798, November.
    7. Satoru Kasahara & Sergey Paltsev & John Reilly & Henry Jacoby & A. Ellerman, 2007. "Climate Change Taxes and Energy Efficiency in Japan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(2), pages 377-410, June.
    8. Reilly, J. & Paltsev, S. & Felzer, B. & Wang, X. & Kicklighter, D. & Melillo, J. & Prinn, R. & Sarofim, M. & Sokolov, A. & Wang, C., 2007. "Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5370-5383, November.
    9. Fankhauser, Samuel & Hepburn, Cameron, 2010. "Designing carbon markets. Part I: Carbon markets in time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4363-4370, August.
    10. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.
    11. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    12. Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2012. "Prices vs. quantities: Technology choice, uncertainty and welfare," Discussion Papers 677, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    13. Webster, Mort & Sue Wing, Ian & Jakobovits, Lisa, 2010. "Second-best instruments for near-term climate policy: Intensity targets vs. the safety valve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 250-259, May.
    14. Bryan K. Mignone & Thomas Alfstad & Aaron Bergman & Kenneth Dubin & Richard Duke & Paul Friley & Andrew Martinez & Matthew Mowers & Karen Palmer & Anthony Paul & Sharon Showalter & Daniel Steinberg & , 2012. "Cost-effectiveness and Economic Incidence of a Clean Energy Standard," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    15. Santiago Moreno-Bromberg & Luca Taschini, 2011. "Pollution permits, Strategic Trading and Dynamic Technology Adoption," Papers 1103.2914, arXiv.org.
    16. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    17. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    18. U. Ciorba & A. Lanza & F. Pauli, 2001. "Kyoto Commitment And Emissions Trading: A European Union Perspective," Working Paper CRENoS 200102, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Babiker, Mustafa & Reilly, John & Ellerman, Denny, 2000. "Japanese Nuclear Power and the Kyoto Agreement," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 169-188, September.
    20. Wood, Peter John & Jotzo, Frank, 2011. "Price floors for emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1746-1753, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • 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:mee:wpaper:0705. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemitus.html .

    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: Sharmila Ganguly The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Sharmila Ganguly to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemitus.html .

    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.