Green Accounting, Air Pollution and Health

Human capital is an important component of economic growth. The article extends a theoretical model for comprehensive national accounting to the welfare effects of pollution on human capital. The model includes a production externality in the form of a flow of air pollutants that cause both direct disutility and indirect welfare effects by negatively affecting the productivity of labor. We show that defensive medical expenditures or healthcare costs allocated to mitigating the disutility of air pollution should not be deducted from conventional net national product (NNP), whereas the value of the percieved disutility of illness episodes caused by pollution should be subtracted from NNP. We derive a marginal cost-benefit rule for an optimal level of pollution given its negative health effects. The rule can be used for determining an optimal tax on harmful emissions. Finally, we outline a scheme for empirical comprehensive accounting and for estimation of an emissions tax.

Costs of Climate Policy when Pollution Affects Health and Labour Productivity. A general Equilibrium Analysis Applied to Sweden

Much of the debate over global climate change involves estimates of the direct costs of global climate change mitigation. Recently this debate has included the issue of ancillary benefits. These benefits consist mainly of health improvements. Although it is generally acknowledged that air pollution affects respiratory health, and that valuations of these impacts make up a significant proportion of the damage costs of air pollution, these impacts are often neglected when evaluating the costs of climate policy. Since reducing greenhouse gases has the effect of also reducing other pollutants affecting human health and labour productivity these effects should be taken into consideration. The analysis incorporates a linkage between air pollution and health effects into a general equilibrium model for Sweden through a theoretical consistent framework. Results from recent Swedish concentration-response and contingent valuation studies are used to model direct disutility and indirect health effects that negatively affects the productivity of labour. The costs of feedback effects on health and productivity are compared in three different scenarios for attaining the Swedish carbon dioxide target with alternative projected emission levels in the baseline scenario as well as alternative harmful emission levels. Results show that not including feedback effects could mean overstating the costs of climate policy. The magnitude of these effects are, however, very sensitive to projected emission levels and to the judgement of harmful emission levels.air pollution; ancillary benefits; climate policy; general equilibrium; health

What is Driving the EU Burden-Sharing Agreement: Efficiency or Equity?

Under the Kyoto Protocol the European Union (EU) agreed to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 percent in comparison with the level in 1990. The Burden-Sharing Agreement (BSA) further redistributes the overall 8 percent reduction target among the EU Member States. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the BSA from both an economical and a political perspective, which means performing hypothesis tests of whether cost-efficiency and equity respectively, were considered in the BSA settlement. Variables used to perform the equity tests are chosen on the basis of the Triptych study. However, the cost-efficiency test is made possible by first calculating marginal abatement costs from the directional output distance function, which is estimated on country production data for 1990-2000. The function is estimated using both corrected ordinary least squares and linear programming techniques. The main conclusion drawn from this study is that both efficiency and equity were considered important to the BSA.burden-sharing; cost-efficiency; parametric directional output distance function; equity; greenhouse gas emission control

How are Green National Accounts Produced in Practice?

During the last part of the twentieth century, the effect of human activity upon the environment became an important policy issue. There is now a growing concern about how economic activity affects the environment and it has become more and more recognised that economic growth is dependent upon the provision of environ-mental services. To be able to combine economic growth with a healthy environment in terms of a sustainable use of natural resources, a better understanding of the rela-tionships between economy and ecology needs to be developed.

Matters Risk? The Allocation of Government Subsidies for Remediation of Contaminated Sites under the Local Investment Programme

In this paper we evaluate how the environmental and health risks posed by a contaminated site affected the probability that it would receive funding for remedial action under a Swedish subsidization scheme, the Local Investment Programme (LIP). The LIP, effective between 1998 and 2002, had a twofold purpose: to step up the pace at which Sweden becomes an ecologically sustainable society and to reduce unemployment. Under the LIP, almost € 43 million (SEK 400 million) were granted to various municipal projects aimed at remediation of contaminated sites. In analyzing data on both subsidized and non-subsidized remediation projects, we unexpectedly find that the more hazardous a site, the less the probability of its receiving funding. Thus, contrary to the “worst things first” strategy officially adopted by the Swedish Parliament for remediation of contaminated sites, our results reveal a risk-avoiding allocation of government subsidies. Furthermore, the number of employment opportunities generated by remediation projects positively affects the probability of receiving a LIP subsidy. Although more faithful observance of the official strategy would have been desirable, the most highly contaminated sites at least received the most money. Based on our findings, we believe that extensive information about the hazards posed by contaminated sites is necessary to ensure better decisions on remediation funding and more efficient use of public resources in the future.

Air quality and morbidity : concentration-response relationship for Sweden

vo

Does environmental leadership pay off for Swed-ish industry? - Analyzing the effects of environ-mental investments on efficiency

Swedish environmental policy often emphasizes the importance of “taking the lead”. For example, Sweden has chosen a more ambitious climate policy target than required by the European Union (EU), namely a reduction of Swedish emissions of greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2020 compared to the 1990 level. Government Bill 2008/09:162 emphasizes Sweden’s role as a good example in making an effort to re-duce climate change by showing that an offensive climate policy can indeed be com-bined with high economic growth. This view of environmental policy is, however, the subject of constant debate. A common argument is that environmental requirements induce private costs by forc-ing firms to make investments that crowd out other more productive investments, which hampers productivity growth and therefore competitiveness. Professor Mi-chael E. Porter of Harvard questioned this argument, and his view has become known as the Porter hypothesis (Porter, 1991). This hypothesis implies that levying stringent environmental regulations on firms enhances their productivity compared to competi-tors not subject to, or subject to lax, environmental regulations. A central message is that the connection between environmental regulation and competitiveness should be scrutinized within a dynamic framework (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). The main objective of this paper is to test the Porter hypothesis by assessing static and dynamic effects of environmental policy on productivity within the Swedish manufac-turing industry, specifically on the component total efficiency. The paper adds mainly to previous literature by using unique data on environmental protection investments, divided into investments in pollution control and pollution prevention, as a proxy for envi-ronmental regulation. The distinction between these types of investments is crucial to the understanding of the outcomes anticipated by the Porter hypothesis. The international literature studying the Porter hypothesis is extensive. A comprehen-sive review reveals that neither theoretical nor empirical literature gives general sup-port for the hypothesis (Brännlund and Lundgren, 2009). We argue that, to some ex-tent, the Porter hypothesis has not yet been given a fair chance in the empirical litera-ture, as dynamic effects are often neglected in empirical tests. Two exceptions are Managi et al. (2005) and Lanoie et al. (2008), who first estimate Total Factor Produc-tivity (TFP) scores that then are used as dependent variables in regression analyses where explanatory lagged environmental stringency measures model dynamic effects. A disadvantage with these studies is, however, that environmental stringency is ap-proximated by the cost of complying with environmental command- and-control regulations, such regulations are not emphasized by the Porter hypothesis. The empirical test of the Porter hypothesis is performed as a two-step procedure, where total efficiency scores are first estimated by adopting a stochastic production frontier function approach. In the second step, the efficiency scores are used as the dependent variable in random effects regression analyses, where the independent vari-ables are, e.g., investment in pollution control and pollution prevention. In order to assess whether these investments have dynamic effects on total efficiency these vari-ables are also lagged. If positive effects are established we cannot reject the claim that environmental leadership will benefit the Swedish industry. The estimations are based on firm level data from five Swedish industries for the period 1999-2004, and carried out for the pooled data as well as for the industries separately.

Can We Buy Time? Evaluation of the Government’s Directed Grant to Remediation in Sweden

The interim targets of the Swedish environmental quality objective “A non-toxic environment” emphasize that remediation of contaminated sites should progress at a high speed. Since remediation is an expensive venture, it is valuable to gain knowledge about where in the remediation process government funding affects the pace of progress the most. In this paper we analyze how government funding, in the form of a directed grant, affects the pace of progress in four different states of the remediation process. The estimation is performed in a simultaneous sequential duration model in which a site has to exit a state to be eligible for inclusion in the following state. We control for a number of variables that may also affect the pace of the remediation process, such as the municipal tax base and the site’s level of contaminants. Although there is heterogeneity between the sites that contribute to making remediation a slow process, our analyses show that the directed grant positively affects the probability of leaving the first and third states. We identify the third state (i.e., the time between the end of a thorough risk classification and the inception of on-site remediation)as the remediation process’ bottleneck. Even if the directed grant can speed up the process in this state, the effect is minuscule compared to the amount of directed grants needed to do so.

Does remediation save lives? On the cost of cleaning up arsenic-contaminated sites in Sweden

Swedish environmental policy is based on 16 environmental quality objectives (Gov. Bill 2000/01:130 and Gov.Bill 2004/05:150).1 One of the most challenging objectives,‘A non toxic environment’, has two interim targets that concern remediation of contaminated sites. In sum, they state that the highest priority should be given to sites posing the highest risks to human health and the environment.2 By eliminating pollutants in soil, groundwater and sediment, the interim targets aim to reduce risks to human health and the environment. In Sweden, 83,000 sites are potentially contaminated due to previous industrial activities. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the administrator of the governmental funds for remediation, approximately 1500 of these sites contain contaminant concentrations that could seriously harm human health and the environment (Swedish EPA, 2008a). To reach the interim targets, all these sites need to be remediated by 2050. Remediation of contaminated sites has so far cost more than SEK 3,000 million.3 The approximated cost to mitigate the potential risks at the most harmful sites is estimated at SEK 60,000 million.4 The Swedish government’s funding for remediation presently comes in the form of a directed grant (sakanslag). The directed grant, administrated by the Swedish EPA, subsidises remediation of contaminated sites that were contaminated prior to modern environmental legislation (in 1969) or for which no liable party can be found. The directed grant amounts to approximately 455 millions annually, which corresponds to about 10 percent of the annual national funds for environmental protection (Gov. Bill 2007/08:1). To make it possible to prioritise among contaminated sites, the Swedish EPA has developed a method for risk assessment called the ‘MIFO’ (i.e. the Method for Inventory of Contaminated Sites). The risk assessment does not take into account the actual exposure at a contaminated site. Risk is instead assessed based on divergence from guideline values for acceptable concentrations given a standardised (i.e. worst case) exposure situation on an individual level. This means that a site can be remediated without any individuals actually being exposed. The expected risk reduction is consequently not quantified. This eliminates the possibility of valuing the risk reduction, which should be weighed against the remediation cost. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how health effects, in the form of cancer risks, from sites contaminated by arsenic are valued implicitly in remediation. By using an environmental medicine approach that takes exposure into account, and without underestimating the potential health consequences of arsenic exposure, our purpose is to place arsenic risk management in the overall picture of live-saving interventions. In the case of cancer prevention, it is necessary to recognise that focus on an environmental carcinogen like arsenic may draw public attention – and funding – away from mental health risks like ambient air pollution and indoor radon. Although environmental pollution accounts for less than ten percent of all cancer cases (Harvard Centre for Cancer Prevention, 1996; Saracci and Vineis, 2007), environmental factors are important to recognize since they may be preventable. We emphasise, however, the inefficiency in becoming overly concerned about small risks while, at the same time, losing sight of the large risks. If society’s spending on lifesaving measures with small effects (i.e. a small number of lives saved) crowds out spending on lifesaving measures with large effects, then remediation can, in fact, even be said to waste lives. By using data on 23 arsenic-contaminated sites in Sweden, we estimate the sitespecific cancer risks and calculate the cost per life saved by using the sites’ remediation costs. Our results show that the cost per life saved through remediation is much higher than that associated with other primary prevention measures, indicating that the ambition level of Swedish remediation may be too high.