|
on Resource Economics |
|
Issue of 2022‒02‒21
five papers chosen by |
| By: | Katrin Millock (PSE - Paris School of Economics - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Cees Withagen (VU - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [Amsterdam]) |
| Abstract: | We review some of the recent estimates of the effect of weather and climate on migration, and articles examining the historical evidence of such links. We identify four issues that have received less attention in previous reviews on the topic. The first one is general equilibrium effects of climate change and migration. The second one concerns accounting for thresholds in the climate-migration relationship. Some of the articles that we review incorporate non-linear effects, but only in the relation between income and migration, and in the relation between weather, climate and migration. Other thresholds are not yet incorporated into the literature. A third issue where much work remains to be done relates to climate change and conflict, and their influence on migration. Finally, we conclude with some reflections on the implications of the results for economic development. |
| Date: | 2021–12–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:pseptp:hal-03513161&r= |
| By: | Giulia Ceccantoni (Memotef, Sapienza University); Ornella Tarola (Department of Social Sciences and Economics, Sapienza University of Rome); Cecilia Vergari (Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa) |
| Abstract: | taxes can drive a more sustainable European market. However, unilateral mitigation measures can reduce the competitiveness of carbon-intensive industries, thereby inducing relocation. In this paper, we wonder whether a tax can effectively curb emissions without hurting firms. Our analysis entry point is that the level of emissions in a region is jointly determined by (i) the number of consumers buying dirty goods and (ii) the environmental quality of these products. Thus, to curb emissions, on the one hand, firms have to reduce their goods emissions intensity. On the other hand, consumers have to reduce the consumption of dirtier goods. This leads to defining a tax whose burden depends on the number of consumers buying the brown products and the relative quality of these products. We show that under this tax, lower emissions do not come at the expense of lower profits. |
| Date: | 2022–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:saq:wpaper:3/22&r= |
| By: | Boscow Okumu; Herbert Ntuli; Edwin Muchapondwa; Gibson Mudiriza; Alfred Mukong |
| Abstract: | Climate change and variability poses a significant hindrance on agricultural productivity. The adverse effects are particularly concerning in many African countries that rely more on rainfed subsistence agriculture for livelihood. The promotion of climate smart agriculture technologies as a pathway to enhancing food security, farmer’s welfare, and providing climate adaptation and mitigation benefits is one of the several interventions aimed at improving agricultural productivity. However, there has been a dearth of evidence on the determinants of adoption of climate smart agriculture practices as well as the impact of climate smart agriculture practices on food security and household welfare. This paper contributes to this knowledge gap by using the probit model to explore the drivers of uptake of climate smart agriculture practices and the inverse probability weighting regression model and the instrumental variable approach to assess the impact on food security and household savings and household vulnerability. We find that the adoption of climate smart agriculture practices among smallholder farmers is influenced by land ownership, climatic variables, land terrain, and household sociodemographic characteristics. The study further revealed that adoption of climate smart agriculture practices leads to reduction in household savings and household vulnerability but leads to improved food security. The findings suggest the need to promote climate smart agriculture practices aimed at livestock management, enhanced agricultural extension work and reduced resource constraints that inhibit farmer’s capacity to adopt complementary practices among others. |
| Keywords: | Climate Smart, food security, savings, Vulnerability |
| JEL: | Q01 Q18 Q54 O13 |
| Date: | 2022–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rza:wpaper:870&r= |
| By: | Julien Daubanes (UNIGE - Université de Genève); Fanny Henriet (PSE - Paris School of Economics - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement); Katheline Schubert (PSE - Paris School of Economics - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement) |
| Abstract: | We examine an open economy's strategy to reduce its carbon emissions by replacing its consumption of coal—very carbon intensive—with gas—less so. Unlike the standard theoretical approach to carbon leakage, we show that unilateral CO2 reduction policies generate a higher leakage rate in the presence of more than one carbon energy source and may turn counterproductive, ultimately increasing world emissions. We establish testable conditions as to whether a unilateral tax on domestic CO2 emissions increases the domestic exploitation of gas and whether such a strategy increases global emissions. We also characterize this strategy's implications for climate policy in the rest of the world. Finally, we present an illustrative application of our results to the United States. |
| Keywords: | unilateral climate policy,carbon emission reduction,shale gas,gas-coal substitution,coal exports,carbon leakage,US policy,counter-productive policy |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:pseptp:hal-03093955&r= |
| By: | Michał Dzieliński (Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University); Florian Eugster (University of St. Gallen); Emma Sjöström (Stockholm School of Economics); Alexander F. Wagner (University of Zurich - Department of Banking and Finance; Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Swiss Finance Institute) |
| Abstract: | Climate change is a major concern for many companies, but it has not historically featured much in earnings conference calls. We find a marked increase in climate talk on these calls in recent years. We also find that climate talk is negatively related to the change in CO2 emissions (especially Scope 2) in the year after the call, particularly in firms with high overall environmental and governance ratings. Conversely, investors react particularly negatively to climate talk when it comes from a firm with low levels of ESG performance or following poor earnings performance. Finally, a firm employs more climate talk when it is more material, when there is greater shareholder pressure or when it is better prepared for climate-related disclosure. Overall, these results suggest that investors and other stakeholders interested in corporate climate action should be paying attention to earnings conference calls as a source of useful information about companies' broader stance on climate-related issues. |
| Keywords: | climate talk, earnings calls, sustainability, CO2 emissions, greenwashing |
| JEL: | D83 G14 G34 G41 Q54 |
| Date: | 2022–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:chf:rpseri:rp2214&r= |