Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (part I): Opportunities for the United States

被引:10
作者
Krause, F
Decanio, SJ
Hoerner, JA
Baer, P
机构
[1] Int Project Sustainable Energy Paths, El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Econ, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
[3] Ctr Sustainable Econ, Washington, DC 20009 USA
[4] Univ Calif Berkeley, Energy & Resources Grp, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1093/cep/20.4.339
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article identifies and corrects shortcomings in recent modeling studies on the economics of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The major assessments of the Kyoto Protocol-by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Clinton White House Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Department Of Energy Interlaboratory Working Group, and the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum-are found to be seriously incomplete. Each study omits one or several of four major cost-reducing policy, options, resulting in cost estimates that are far too pessimistic. In the present study, these shortcomings are overcome through the integrated evaluation of all major cost-cutting policy options within a coherent least-cost framework. Three domestic policies-a national carbon cap and permit trading program, productivity-enhancing market reforms and technology programs, and recycling of permit auction revenues into economically advantageous tax cuts-are combined with international emissions allowance trading. This analysis shows that an integrated least-cost strategy for mitigating US. greenhouse gas emissions would produce an annual net output gain of roughly 0.4% of GDP in 2010 and about 0.9% of GDP in 2020. On a cumulative net present value basis, the United States would gain $250 billion by 2010 and $600 billion by 2020. International flexibility, mechanisms (including emissions trading) are of only secondary significance in realizing these productivity, output, and welfare gains.
引用
收藏
页码:339 / 365
页数:27
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
*ABT ASS PECH AV G, 1999, CO CONTR BEN GREENH
[2]   ENERGY TAXATION AS A POLICY INSTRUMENT TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS - A NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS [J].
BOYD, R ;
KRUTILLA, K ;
VISCUSI, WK .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1995, 29 (01) :1-24
[3]  
[Bruce J.P. IPCC IPCC], 1996, Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[4]  
*CEA, 1998, KYOT PROT PRES POL A
[5]   BARRIERS WITHIN FIRMS TO ENERGY-EFFICIENT INVESTMENTS [J].
DECANIO, SJ .
ENERGY POLICY, 1993, 21 (09) :906-914
[6]  
*EIA, 1998, DOEEIA0383
[7]  
*EIA, 1998, SR9IAF9803 EIA
[8]  
*EMF, 1999, ENERGY J
[9]  
HAITES E, 2000, I FEATURES KYOT MECH
[10]  
Hammond J., 1997, TAX WASTE NOT WORK