Do Permit Allocations Matter?

In the standard setting a system of tradable permits is effective and cost-efficient in attaining the policy objective of pollution reduction. This outcome is challenged in case of a tradable permit system in a federal system/constitution with individual states having discretionary power regarding environmental policy and where pollution is transboundary across states. This paper explores the opportunities of the central authority to influence the effectiveness and efficiency of the system, under various institutional arrangements, through the initial allocation of permits.tradable permits, fiscal federalism

Tradable Emission Permits in a Federal System

A system of tradable permits in the standard setting is effective in attaining the policy objective with regard to pollution reduction at the least cost. This outcome is challenged in case of a tradable permit system in a federal state with individual states having discretionary power regarding environmental policy and where pollution is transboundary across states. This paper explores the opportunities of the central authority to influence the effectiveness of the system, under different institutional arrangements, through the initial allocation of permits.tradable permits, trade bans, fiscal federalism

Tradable emission permits in a federal system

A system of tradable permits in the standard setting is effective in attaining the policy objective with regard to pollution reduction at the least cost. This outcome is challenged in case of a tradable permit system in a federal state with individual states having discretionary power regarding environmental policy and where pollution is transboundary across states. This paper explores the opportunities of the central authority to influence the effectiveness of the system, under different institutional arrangements, through the initial allocation of permitstradable permits, trade bans, fiscal federalism.

Optimal Emission-Extraction Policy in a World of Scarcity and Irreversibility

This paper extends the classical exhaustible-resource/stock-pollution model with irreversibility of pollution decay, meaning that after reaching some threshold there is no decay of the pollution stock. Within this framework, we answer the question how the potential irreversibility of pollution affects the extraction path. We investigate the conditions under which the economy will optimally adopt a reversible policy, and when it is optimal to enter the irreversible region. In the case of irreversibility it may be optimal to leave a positive amount of resource in the ground forever. As far as the optimal extraction/emission policy is concerned, several types of solutions may arise, including solutions where the economy stays at the threshold for a while. Given that different programs may satisfy the first order conditions for optimality, we further investigate when each of these is optimal. The analysis is illustrated by means of a calibrated example. To sum up, for any pollution level, we can identify a critical resource stock such that there exist multiple optima i.e. a reversible and an irreversible policy that yield exactly the same present value. For any resource stock below this critical value, the optimal policy is reversible whereas with large enough resources, irreversible policies outperform reversible programs. Finally, the comparison between irreversible policies reveals that it is never optimal for the economy to stay at the threshold for a while before entering the irreversible region.non-renewable resource, irreversible pollution, optimal policy

Is There Really a Green Paradox?

The Green Paradox states that, in the absence of a tax on CO2 emissions, subsidizing a renewable backstop such as solar or wind energy brings forward the date at which fossil fuels become exhausted and consequently global warming is aggravated. We shed light on this issue by solving a model of depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels followed by a switch to a renewable backstop, paying attention to timing of the switch and the amount of fossil fuels remaining unexploited. We show that the Green Paradox occurs for relatively expensive but clean backstops (such as solar or wind), but does not occur if the backstop is sufficiently cheap relative to marginal global warming damages (e.g., nuclear energy) as then it is attractive to leave fossil fuels unexploited and thus limit CO2 emissions. We show that, without a CO2 tax, subsidizing the backstop might enhance welfare. If the backstop is relatively dirty and cheap (e.g., coal), there might be a period with simultaneous use of the non-renewable and renewable fuels. If the backstop is very dirty compared to oil or gas (e.g., tar sands), there is no simultaneous use. The optimum policy requires an initially rising CO2 tax followed by a gradually declining CO2 tax once the dirty backstop has been introduced. We also discuss the potential for limit pricing when the non-renewable resource is owned by a monopolist.Green Paradox, Hotelling rule, non-renewable resource, renewable backstop, global warming, carbon tax, limit pricing

Too Little Oil, Too Much Coal: Optimal Carbon Tax and when to Phase in Oil, Coal and Renewables

Our main message is that it is optimal to use less coal and more oil once one takes account of coal being a backstop which emits much more CO2 than oil. The way of achieving this is to have a steeply rising carbon tax during the initial oil-only phase, a less-steeply rising carbon tax during the intermediate phase where oil and coal are used alongside each other and the following coal-only phase, and a flat carbon tax during the final renewables-only phase. The “laissez-faire” outcome uses coal forever or starts with oil until it is no longer cost-effective to do so and then switches to coal. We also analyze the effects on the optimal transition times and carbon tax of a carbon-free, albeit expensive backstop (solar or wind energy). Subsidizing renewables to just below the cost of coal does not affect the oil-only phase. The gain in green welfare dominates the welfare cost of the subsidy if the subsidy gap is small and the global warming challenge is acute. Without a carbon tax a prohibitive coal tax leads to less oil left in situ and substantially delays introduction of renewables, but curbs global warming substantially as coal is never used. Finally, we characterize under general conditions what the optimal sequencing oil and coal looks like.Hotelling rule, non-renewable resource, dirty backstop, coal, global warming, carbon tax, renewables, tax on coal, subsidy on renewables, transition times, Herfindahl rule

Local and Global Interactions in an Evolutionary Resource Game

Conditions for the emergence of cooperation in a spatial common-pool resource game are studied. This combines in a unique way local and global interactions. A fixed number of harvesters are located on a spatial grid. Harvesters choose among three strategies: defection, cooperation, and enforcement. Individual payoffs are affected by both global factors, namely, aggregate harvest and resource stock level, and local factors, such as the imposition of sanctions on neighbors by enforcers. The evolution of strategies in the population is driven by social learning through imitation. Numerous types of equilibria exist in these settings. An important new finding is that clusters of cooperators and enforcers can survive among large groups of defectors. We discuss how the results contrast with the non-spatial, but otherwise similar, game of Sethi and Somanathan (1996).Common property, Cooperation, Evolutionary game theory, Global interactions, Local interactions, Social norms

Spatial Evolution of Social Norms in a Common-Pool Resource Game

We study the conditions for the emergence of cooperation in a spatial common-pool resource game. We consider three types of agents: cooperators, defectors and enforcers. The role of enforcers is to punish defectors for overharvesting the resource. Agents are located around a circle and they only observe the actions of their two nearest neighbors. Their payoffs are determined by both local and global interactions and they modify their actions by imitating the strategy in their neighborhood with the highest payoffs on average. Using theoretical and numerical analysis, we find that a large diversity of equilibria exists in this game. In particular, we derive conditions for the occurrence of equilibria in which the three strategies coexist. We also discuss the stability of these equilibria. Finally, we show that introducing resource dynamics favors the occurrence of cooperative equilibria.Common property, Evolutionary game theory, Local interactions game, Self-organization, Cooperation

Constant Savings Rates and Quasi-Arithmetic Population Growth under Exhaustible Resource Constraints

In the Dasgupta-Heal-Solow-Stiglitz model of capital accumulation and resource depletion we show the following equivalence: If an efficient path has constant (gross and net of population growth) savings rates, then population growth must be quasi-arithmetic and the path is a maximin or a classical utilitarian optimum. Conversely, if a path is optimal according to maximin or classical utilitarianism (with constant elasticity of marginal utility) under quasiarithmetic population growth, then the (gross and net of population growth) savings rates converge asymptotically to constants.constant savings rate, quasi-arithmetic population growth

Inciting protocols

This paper studies patenting decisions by firms in relation to the negotiation and signing of the Helsinki and Oslo protocol as part of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. We use a uniquely constructed patent data set on SO 2 abatement technologies filed in 15 signatory and non-signatory countries in the period 1970-1997. The data distinguish between so-called 'mother' patents, or original inventions, and 'family' patents, which represent the same invention but are patents filed in foreign countries. Our analysis suggests that not only local environmental regulations matter for patenting decisions. International environmental agreements provide incentives for additional inventive activity in and the diffusion of knowledge towards signatory countries by reducing investment uncertainty for inventing firms