IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/17539.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policy-Instrument Choice and Benefit Estimates for Climate-Change Policy in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J. Kotchen
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Anthony A. Leiserowitz

Abstract

This paper provides the first willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates in support of a national climate-change policy that are comparable with the costs of actual legislative efforts in the U.S. Congress. Based on a survey of 2,034 American adults, we find that households are, on average, willing to pay between $79 and $89 per year in support of reducing domestic greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions 17 percent by 2020. Even very conservative estimates yield an average WTP at or above $60 per year. Taking advantage of randomized treatments within the survey valuation question, we find that mean WTP does not vary substantially among the policy instruments of a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, or a GHG regulation. But there are differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of those willing to pay across policy instruments. Greater education always increases WTP. Older individuals have a lower WTP for a carbon tax and a GHG regulation, while greater household income increases WTP for these same two policy instruments. Republicans, along with those indicating no political party affiliation, have a significantly lower WTP regardless of the policy instrument. But many of these differences are no longer evident after controlling for respondent opinions about whether global warming is actually happening.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J. Kotchen & Kevin J. Boyle & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2011. "Policy-Instrument Choice and Benefit Estimates for Climate-Change Policy in the United States," NBER Working Papers 17539, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17539
    Note: EEE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17539.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    2. Nordhaus William D, 2010. "Carbon Taxes to Move Toward Fiscal Sustainability," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 1-5, September.
    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. Xiaochen Gong & Yunxia Liu & Tao Sun, 2020. "Evaluating Climate Change Governance Using the “Polity–Policy–Politics” Framework: A Comparative Study of China and the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Terrie Walmsley & Peter Minor, 2020. "Demand shifts and willingness to pay in applied trade models," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1499-1520, June.

    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. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    2. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    3. Mariana Conte Grand & Martina Chidiak, 2010. "Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 432, Universidad del CEMA.
    4. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    5. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron & Heintzelman, Martin, 2002. "Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 161-186, March.
    6. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    7. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    8. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    9. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Nielsen, Chris P. & Ho, Mun S. & Zhao, Yu & Wang, Yuxuan & Lei, Yu & Cao, Jing, 2013. "An Integrated Assessment of the Economic Costs and Environmental Benefits of Carbon Taxes in China," Conference papers 332406, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Ian A. Lange & Sarah Polborn, 2012. "Can Lobbying Encourage Abatement? Designing a New Policy Instrument," CESifo Working Paper Series 3760, CESifo.
    13. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
    15. Xavier Vence & Sugey de Jesus López Pérez, 2021. "Taxation for a Circular Economy: New Instruments, Reforms, and Architectural Changes in the Fiscal System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Pereira, Alfredo M. & Pereira, Rui M. & Rodrigues, Pedro G., 2016. "A new carbon tax in Portugal: A missed opportunity to achieve the triple dividend?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 110-118.
    17. Alfredo M. Pereira & Rui M. Pereira, 2014. "Environmental Fiscal Reform and Fiscal Consolidation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 222-253, March.
    18. Alfredo Marvao Pereira & Rui Marvao Pereira, 2019. "Achieving the triple dividend in Portugal: a dynamic general-equilibrium evaluation of a carbon tax indexed to emissions trading," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 148-163, April.
    19. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2004. "Attitudes Towards Alternative Management Policies For Public Recreation Lands," Working Paper Series 14530, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    20. Rong Zhou & Kathleen Segerson, 2012. "Are Green Taxes a Good Way to Help Solve State Budget Deficits?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-25, June.

    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
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:17539. 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.