National Climate Policies and Corporate Internal Carbon Pricing

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Bento ◽  
Gianfranco Gianfrate ◽  
Joseph E. Aldy
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kohlscheen ◽  
Richhild Moessner ◽  
Elod Takats

Author(s):  
Jonas Meckling

What policies could mobilize business support for progressive and durable national climate policy in the United States? I examine the climate policy experiences of U.S. states and propose that a national clean energy standard combined with carefully allocated public investment in clean energy infrastructure and innovation could mobilize economic interests in support of decarbonization. Further, I argue that the more entrenched clean energy and infrastructure become, the more likely it becomes that comprehensive climate policies can be passed in the future. This includes performance and deployment mandates beyond the electricity industry, including in the transport and building sectors. These initial steps may also help to build a winning coalition for progressive federal carbon pricing, as opposed to an accommodative coalition in support of weak carbon pricing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-517
Author(s):  
Dominique Bureau ◽  
Alain Quinet ◽  
Katheline Schubert

AbstractAlthough a carbon value has often been integrated in the frameworks established to guide public decision-making, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has played no more than a minor role in the design of climate policies. It is urgently necessary to promote BCA in this area, and there is currently a unique opportunity for doing so. Major countries are designing new packages in order to meet their commitments, as illustrated by the European Green Deal, recent decisions on the part of the Biden Administration, and the creation of a Chinese national carbon market. These constructive processes must be based on BCA. BCA is absolutely necessary in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at a reasonable cost. Indeed, abatement costs across and within sectors, and across and within countries, are extremely heterogeneous, and many of the policy instruments in use (subsidies, feed-in tariffs, technical standards, etc.) overlap inefficiently. The instrumental debate between carbon pricing and other instruments is sterile if it merely remains at the level of stating principles. BCA can help on this point too, by specifying comparisons between alternatives, identifying complementarities, and selecting the most relevant combinations of instruments. Its scope should therefore range from setting benchmarks for carbon pricing to assessing, e.g., green investments or measures to enhance carbon sinks. When applied to decarbonization policies, BCA requires firstly the selection of a carbon value, in order to monetize the climate benefits of investments and policies. However, the whole assessment framework must be updated, including the time horizon, the discount rate, the cobenefits of climate mitigation actions, and the pricing of climate risks. We show that such an updated framework leads to an upward revision in the assessment of the climate benefits of mitigation actions, and that combining the valuation of damages and cost-effectiveness approaches is necessary in order to meet the needs of policy assessment. Finally, there is a need to extend analysis beyond the efficiency criterion in order to deal with other dimensions of climate policies, particularly their distributive impacts. This requires specific analyses, which should be articulated with BCA and carried out at an early stage for a better implementation of climate policies than we have seen to date.


Author(s):  
Nils Ohlendorf ◽  
Michael Jakob ◽  
Jan Christoph Minx ◽  
Carsten Schröder ◽  
Jan Christoph Steckel

AbstractUnderstanding the distributional impacts of market-based climate policies is crucial to design economically efficient climate change mitigation policies that are socially acceptable and avoid adverse impacts on the poor. Empirical studies that examine the distributional impacts of carbon pricing and fossil fuel subsidy reforms in different countries arrive at ambiguous results. To systematically determine the sources of variation between these outcomes, we apply an ordered probit meta-analysis framework. Based on a comprehensive, systematic and transparent screening of the literature, our sample comprises 53 empirical studies containing 183 effects in 39 countries. Results indicate a significantly increased likelihood of progressive distributional outcomes for studies on lower income countries and transport sector policies. The same applies to study designs that consider indirect effects, demand-side adjustments of consumers or lifetime income proxies.


2018 ◽  
pp. 76-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. A. Makarov ◽  
C. Henry ◽  
V. P. Sergey

The paper applies multiregional CGE Economic Policy Projection and Analysis (EPPA) model to analyze major risks the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in 2015 brings to Russia. The authors come to the conclusion that if parties of the Agreement meet their targets that were set for 2030 it may lead to the decrease of average annual GDP growth rates by 0.2-0.3 p. p. Stricter climate policies beyond this year would bring GDP growth rates reduction in2035-2050 by additional 0.5 p. p. If Russia doesn’t ratify Paris Agreement, these losses may increase. In order to mitigate these risks, diversification of Russian economy is required.


10.1596/31717 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andualem Telaye ◽  
Pablo Benitez ◽  
Seneshaw Tamru ◽  
Haileselassie Medhin ◽  
Michael Toman

10.1596/33490 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe De Gouvello ◽  
Dominique Finon ◽  
Pierre Guigon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document