Climate Effects of Carbon Taxes, Taking into Account Possible Other Future Climate Measures
A carbon tax may be the most efficient means to limit climate change - eventually mankind's largest externality. When discussing the effects of such a tax, today most climate economics research focuses on the demand, reducing the energy supply side to a static process. However, supply side effects can be crucial for the assessment of carbon emission reduction strategies: Along the claim H.-W. SINN entitled «Green Paradox», they imply that a realistic carbon tax introduced at a low initial level but rapidly increasing might be counterproductive for the climate, accelerating exploitation of the limited resources rather than delaying or reducing it. Owners of fossil fuel stocks optimise sales over time. Anticipating in early periods larger future taxes, they sell more of their fuels today rather than in future. Controversial, SINN's analysis impressively demonstrates the importance of supply side effects for greenhouse gas policy assessments. The analyses by SINN and subsequent contributors assume the debated policy to be the only relevant climate measure for all future. But avoiding a carbon tax today will not imply that no climate relevant development materializes ever. Rather, without substantial measures today, growing climate threats may increase the probability of future measures. This is relevant for the desirability of a carbon tax as resource owners anticipate also other potential future measures. We model the impact of a current carbon tax on global emissions, taking future climate measures into account: we assume that other climate measures, such as backstop technologies, global Kyoto-like demand cartels, carbon capture and storage systems, or alternative carbon taxes may be introduced in some future. The analysis is based on a dynamic multi-period model of the behaviour of forward looking resource owners which optimize sales inter-temporally. For generality, we neither assume a specific extraction cost curve nor use specific assumptions about the tax path or the demand function. We allow monopolistic and competitive sellers. In presence of an anticipated specific future regime change such as a backstop introduction, any positive worldwide tax bridging the time until the future measure, unambiguously reduces cumulative emissions not only in the long, but already in the medium-term. At least for limited tax levels, this holds also for regional taxes. We further consider a stochastic introduction of a backstop. Then, even the weak version of the Green Paradox, i.e. that taxes growing at a rate faster than the real interest rate increase current emissions, fails; such taxes even reduce current and near-term emissions. This analysis has important implications for general climate policy assessment. A decision on a particular climate policy will in general not be decisive for every other potential climate measure. Taking the possibility of alternative climate measures into account can therefore be necessary to prevent strongly biased results.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.socialpolitik.org/|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Hoel, Michael, 2011.
"Is there a green paradox?,"
13/2010, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Frederick Van der Ploeg & Cees Withagen, 2011. "Optimal Carbon Tax with a Dirty Backstop - Oil, Coal, or Renewables?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3334, CESifo Group Munich.
- Pearce, David W, 1991. "The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 938-48, July.
- Frederick van der Ploeg & Cees Withagen, 2010.
"Is there really a Green Paradox?,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
10-020/3, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Aug 2012.
- Rick van der Ploeg & Cees Withagen, 2010. "Is There Really a Green Paradox?," OxCarre Working Papers 035, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
- Frederick Van der Ploeg & Cees A. Withagen, 2010. "Is There Really a Green Paradox?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2963, CESifo Group Munich.
- Liski, Matti & Tahvonen, Olli, 2004. "Can carbon tax eat OPEC's rents?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-12, January.
- Reyer Gerlagh, 2010.
"Too Much Oil,"
2010.14, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Hans-Werner Sinn, 2008.
"Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach,"
International Tax and Public Finance,
Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 15(4), pages 360-394, August.
- Sinn, Hans-Werner, 2008. "Public policies against global warming: A supply side approach," Munich Reprints in Economics 19638, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Rémy Dullieux & Lionel Ragot & Katheline Schubert, 2011.
"Carbon tax and OPEC's rents under a ceiling constraint,"
Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers)
- Rémy Dullieux & Lionel Ragot & Katheline Schubert, 2011. "Carbon Tax and OPEC’s Rents Under a Ceiling Constraint," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(4), pages 798-824, December.
- Frederick van der Ploeg & Cees Withagen, 2011.
"Too Much Coal, Too Little Oil,"
OxCarre Working Papers
056, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc11:48717. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.