The Distributional Impact of a Carbon Tax in Ireland

We study the effects of carbon taxation and revenue recycling across the income distribution in Ireland. Price changes of fuels and all other final goods and services are taken into account. If applied only to the emissions not covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, a carbon tax of €20/tCO2 would cost the poorest households around €3.5/week and the richest ones €5/week. The tax is regressive, therefore. However, if the revenue is used to increase social benefits and tax credits, households across the income distribution can be made better off without exhausting the total carbon tax revenue.

The Impact of Government Policy on Private Car Ownership in Ireland

We construct a model of the stock of private cars in the Republic of Ireland. The model distinguishes cars by fuel, engine size and age. The modelled car stock is built up from a long history of data on sales, and calibrated to recent data on actual stock. We complement the data on the number of cars with data on fuel efficiency and distance driven – which together give fuel use and emissions – and the costs of purchase, ownership and use. We use the model to project the car stock from 2010 to 2025. The following results emerge. The 2009 reform of the vehicle registration and motor tax has led to a dramatic shift from petrol to diesel cars. Fuel efficiency has improved and will improve further as a result, but because diesel cars are heavier, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced but not substantially so. The projected emissions in 2020 are roughly the same as in 2007. In a second set of simulations, we impose the government targets for electrification of transport. As all-electric vehicles are likely to displace small, efficient, and little-driven petrol cars, the effect on carbon dioxide emissions is minimal. We also consider the scrappage scheme, which has little effect as it applies to a small fraction of the car stock only,

On International Equity Weights and National Decision Making on Climate Change

Estimates of the marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions require the aggregation of monetised impacts of climate change over people with different incomes and in different jurisdictions. Implicitly or explicitly, such estimates assume a social welfare function and hence a particular attitude towards equity and justice. We show that previous approaches to equity weighing are inappropriate from a national decision maker’s point of view, because domestic impacts are not valued at domestic values. We propose four alternatives (sovereignty, altruism, good neighbour, and compensation) with different views on concern for and liability towards foreigners. The four alternatives imply radically estimates of the social cost of carbon and hence the optimal intensity of climate policy.domestic climate policy, social cost of carbon, equity weights

Equitable cost-benefit analysis of climate change

The literature of welfare-maximising greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies pays remarkably little attention to equity. This paper introduces three ways to consider efficiency and equity simultaneously. The first method, inspired by Kant and Rawls, maximises net present welfare, without international co-operation, as if all regions share the fate of the region affected worst by climate change. Optimal emission abatement varies greatly depending on the spatial and temporal resolution, that is, the grid at which 'maximum impact' is defined. The second method is inspired by Varian's no-envy. Emissions are reduced so as to equalise total costs and benefits of climate change over the world and over time. Emission reductions are substantial. This method approximately preserves the inequities that would occur in a world without climate change. The third method uses non-linear aggregations of welfare (the utilitarian default is linear) in a co-operative setting. This method cannot distinguish between sources of inequity. The higher the aversion to inequity, the higher optimal greenhouse gas emission reduction

Climate policy versus development aid

Rich countries have emitted most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while poor countries will suffer most from climate change. Rich countries have therefore committed to help poor countries adapt. However, this is financed from the general development budget, and hence may do more harm than good. Furthermore, development aid also finances emission reduction. These aspects of climate policy need to be overhauled. Development assistance should consider the impact of climate change, and reduce emissions where it can, but this can be achieved by marginal adjustments to current practice

Trends in air pollution in Ireland: A decompostion analysis

Trends in the emissions to air of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia in Ireland are analysed with a logarithmic mean Divisia index decomposition for the period of 1990-2009. Emissions fell for four of the five pollutants, with ammonia being stationary, despite rapid economic change. A fall in emissions per unit output was the main driver of this trend, except for ammonia where structural economic change was the main driver. Extrapolating these trends continue, Ireland will keep emissions below its National Emission Ceilings, except in the case of nitrogen oxides where the target will likely be met by 2015

Measuring international inequality aversion

I measure the rate of aversion to inequality in consumption as expressed in the development aid given by rich countries to poor ones between 1965 and 2005. Over time, OECD countries have become less concerned about international inequity. Even for a fairly leaky bucket, the consumption rate of inequity aversion is less than the rate of risk aversion, which implies that the pure rate of inequity aversion is negative. That is, rich countries would prefer to see greater inequality between rich and poor countries

The optimal timing of greenhouse gas emission abatement, individual rationality and intergenerational equity

This paper explores the relationship between rationality and equity in an intergenerational context of greenhouse gas emission reduction. It is shown that the least-cost trajectory to a constraint on cumulative emissions implies an upward-sloping emission reduction effort, in most cases, whether technological development is exogenous or endogenous (either investments in research, development and demonstration or learning-by-doing). The least-cost trajectory, however, also implies in most cases that generations in the further future face higher relative costs than do generations in the nearer future. Cost-effectiveness thus may well violate intergenerational equity and rationality of future decision makers. More equitable solutions would lead to a relative shift of abatement effort to the near future, although emission reduction would still be increasing over time. In all cases, technological development in the earlier decades is very important

Population and trends in the global mean temperature

The Fisher Ideal index, developed to measure price inflation, is applied to define a population-weighted temperature trend. This method has the advantages that the trend is representative for the population distribution throughout the sample but without conflating the trend in the population distribution and the trend in the temperature. I show that the trend in the global area-weighted average surface air temperature is different in key details from the population-weighted trend. I extend the index to include urbanization and the urban heat island effect. This substantially changes the trend again. I further extend the index to include international migration, but this has a minor impact on the trend