IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Alternative Climate Policies and Intertemporal Emissions Leakage: Quantifying the Green Paradox

  • Fischer, Carolyn


    (Resources for the Future)

  • Salant, Stephen


    (Resources for the Future)

Efforts to limit cumulative emissions over the next century may be partially thwarted by the responses of fossil fuel suppliers. Current price-cost margins for major reserves are ample, leaving scope for significant price reductions if climate policies reduce demand for fossil fuels through conservation or substitution to clean alternatives. Most models simulating the consequences of climate policies completely disregard these supply responses. As for theoretical models, under standard assumptions they predict such strong supplier responses that climate policies may have no effect on cumulative emissions and may even leave society worse off, suffering damages from global warming sooner and with less time to adapt (the “green paradox”).We contribute to this literature by developing a richer theoretical model that takes account of the different extraction costs and emissons rates of different fossil reserves. We use this model to compare the qualitative effects of four policy options—accelerating cost reductions in the clean backstop technologies, taxing emissions, improving energy efficiency, and a clean fuel blend mandate. We also discuss the consequences of mandating carbon capture and sequestration. All policies can reduce cumulative emissions, but the backstop policy accelerates emissions while conservation policies (energy efficiency or blend mandates) delay emissions. We then calibrate the model using data on costs, reserves, and emissions factors for five major categories of oil. Using this calibrated model, we estimate the interemporal leakage rate—the percentage error in cumulative emissions reductions that would arise if no account is taken of the supply responses of oil producers. We find that conservation policies can have higher intertemporal leakage rates and backstop policies can have lower leakage than an emissions tax. Leakage rates generally decline as the policies become more stringent.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-12-16.

in new window

Date of creation: 23 Apr 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-12-16
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. Anthoff, David & Rose, Steven K. & Tol, Richard S. J. & Waldhoff, Stephanie, 2011. "The Time Evolution of the Social Cost of Carbon: An Application of FUND," Papers WP405, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
  2. Mustafa H. Babiker & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2005. "The Economic Effects of Border Measures in Subglobal Climate Agreements," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 99-126.
  3. Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Leach, Andrew & Moreaux, Michel, 2010. "Would Hotelling Kill the Electric Car?," TSE Working Papers 09-149, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  4. Mikhail Golosov & John Hassler & Per Krusell & Aleh Tsyvinski, 2011. "Optimal Taxes on Fossil Fuel in General Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 17348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Kenneth A. Small & Kurt Van Dender, 2007. "Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 25-52.
  6. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard, 2004. "Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation," Discussion Papers dp-04-05, Resources For the Future.
  7. Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Daniel Sperling, 2006. "Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand," NBER Working Papers 12530, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Michael Hoel, 2011. "The Supply Side of CO2 with Country Heterogeneity," CESifo Working Paper Series 3393, CESifo Group Munich.
  9. John Hassler & Per Krusell & Conny Olovsson, 2010. "Oil Monopoly and the Climate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 460-64, May.
  10. Sinn, Hans-Werner, 2008. "Public policies against global warming: A supply side approach," Munich Reprints in Economics 19638, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  11. Frederick Van der Ploeg & Cees A. Withagen, 2010. "Is There Really a Green Paradox?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2963, CESifo Group Munich.
  12. Jon Strand, 2007. "Technology Treaties and Fossil-Fuels Extraction," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 129-142.
  13. Manne, Alan & Mendelsohn, Robert & Richels, Richard, 1995. "MERGE : A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 17-34, January.
  14. Gerard Gaudet & Michel Moreaux & Stephen W. Salant, 2001. "Intertemporal Depletion of Resource Sites by Spatially Distributed Users," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1149-1159, September.
  15. Reyer Gerlagh, 2010. "Too Much Oil," Working Papers 2010.14, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  16. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2009. "Carbon leakage, the green paradox and perfect future markets," Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 136-09, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
  17. R. Quentin Grafton & Tom Kompas & Ngo Van Long, 2010. "Biofuels Subsidies and the Green Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 2960, CESifo Group Munich.
  18. Molly Espey, 1996. "Explaining the Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 49-60.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-12-16. 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: (Webmaster)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.