IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13176.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sergey Paltsev
  • John M. Reilly
  • Henry D. Jacoby
  • Angelo C. Gurgel
  • Gilbert E. Metcalf
  • Andrei P. Sokolov
  • Jennifer F. Holak

Abstract

The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis model is applied to synthetic policies that match key attributes of a set of cap-and-trade proposals being considered by the U.S. Congress in spring 2007. The bills 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. Initial period prices are estimated between $7 and $50 per ton CO2-e with these prices rising by a factor of four by 2050. Welfare costs vary from near zero to 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. Outcomes from U.S. policies depend on mitigation effort abroads, 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 key design features. 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 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 suit.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergey Paltsev & John M. Reilly & Henry D. Jacoby & Angelo C. Gurgel & Gilbert E. Metcalf & Andrei P. Sokolov & Jennifer F. Holak, 2007. "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," NBER Working Papers 13176, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13176
    Note: PE EEE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13176.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aen:journl:2006se_weyant-a26 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:aen:journl:1997v18-03-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    3. Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2012. "Prices vs. quantities: Technology choice, uncertainty and welfare," Discussion Papers 677, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. repec:aen:eeepjl:1_3_a05 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2011-042 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Junhai Ma & Yuxin Liu & Liyan Geng, 2023. "Does green credit financing mode with cap‐and‐trade scheme really benefit all members?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(7), pages 4173-4192, October.
    8. Wood, Peter John & Jotzo, Frank, 2011. "Price floors for emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1746-1753, March.
    9. Gomez-Trejos, Felipe, 2025. "Dynamic welfare implications of market-based climate policy under demand uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    10. Flachsland, Christian & Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2009. "Global trading versus linking: Architectures for international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1637-1647, May.
    11. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Can an Effective Global Climate Treaty be Based on Sound Science, Rational Economics, and Pragmatic Politics?," Working Paper Series rwp04-020, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Adrian Amelung, 2016. "Das "Paris-Agreement": Durchbruch der Top-Down-Klimaschutzverhandlungen im Kreise der Vereinten Nationen," Otto-Wolff-Institut Discussion Paper Series 03/2016, Otto-Wolff-Institut für Wirtschaftsordnung, Köln, Deutschland.
    13. J. West & Arlene Fiore & Larry Horowitz, 2012. "Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 441-461, October.
    14. Santiago Moreno-Bromberg & Luca Taschini, 2011. "Pollution permits, Strategic Trading and Dynamic Technology Adoption," Papers 1103.2914, arXiv.org.
    15. Gesine Bökenkamp & Wan-Jung Chou & Olav Hohmeyer & Wouter Nijs & Alistair Hunt & Anil Markandya, 2010. "Policy Instruments," Chapters, in: Anil Markandya & Andrea Bigano & Roberto Porchia (ed.), The Social Cost of Electricity, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Brauneis, Alexander & Mestel, Roland & Palan, Stefan, 2013. "Inducing low-carbon investment in the electric power industry through a price floor for emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 190-204.
    17. Aldy, Joseph E. & Ley, Eduardo & Parry, Ian, 2008. "A Tax–Based Approach to Slowing Global Climate Change," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 61(3), pages 493-517, September.
    18. Rousse, Olivier, 2008. "Environmental and economic benefits resulting from citizens' participation in CO2 emissions trading: An efficient alternative solution to the voluntary compensation of CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 388-397, January.
    19. Min-Chun Yu & Min-Hong Su, 2017. "Using Fuzzy DEA for Green Suppliers Selection Considering Carbon Footprints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, March.
    20. Jessika Richter & Luis Mundaca, 2015. "Achieving and maintaining institutional feasibility in emissions trading: the case of New Zealand," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(8), pages 1487-1509, December.
    21. Sandoff, Anders & Schaad, Gabriela, 2009. "Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3967-3977, October.
    22. Jan Abrell & Sebastian Rausch & Hidemichi Yonezawa, 2019. "Higher Price, Lower Costs? Minimum Prices in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(2), pages 446-481, April.

    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:nbr:nberwo:13176. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.