|
on Resource Economics |
|
Issue of 2022‒02‒07
four papers chosen by |
| By: | Mark Budolfson (Rutgers School of Public Health); Francis Dennig (Yale-NUS College); Frank Errickson (University of California [Berkeley] - University of California, Princeton University); Simon Feindt (MCC - Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change - PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, TU - Technische Universität Berlin); Maddalena Ferranna (Harvard School of Public Health - Department of Global Health and Population [Boston, MA, USA] - Harvard University [Cambridge]); Marc Fleurbaey (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, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement); David Klenert (JRC - European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Seville]); Ulrike Kornek (MCC - Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change - PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research); Kevin Kuruc (OU - University of Oklahoma); Aurélie Méjean (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Wei Peng (Penn State - Pennsylvania State University - Penn State System); Noah Scovronick (Emory University [Atlanta, GA]); Dean Spears (University of Texas at Austin [Austin]); Fabian Wagner (IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [Laxenburg]); Stéphane Zuber (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, CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | Existing estimates of optimal climate policy ignore the possibility that carbon tax revenues could be used in a progressive way; model results therefore typically imply that near-term climate action comes at some cost to the poor. Using the Nested Inequalities Climate Economy (NICE) model, we show that an equal per capita refund of carbon tax revenues implies that achieving a 2 °C target can pay large and immediate dividends for improving well-being, reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. In an optimal policy calculation that weighs the benefits against the costs of mitigation, the recommended policy is characterized by aggressive near-term climate action followed by a slower climb towards full decarbonization; this pattern—which is driven by a carbon revenue Laffer curve—prevents runaway warming while also preserving tax revenues for redistribution. Accounting for these dynamics corrects a long-standing bias against strong immediate climate action in the optimal policy literature |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:pseptp:hal-03483584&r= |
| By: | Victor Ajai (Energy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge); Karim Anaya (Energy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge); Geoffroy Dolphin (Energy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge); Michael Pollit (Energy Policy Research Group, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge) |
| Keywords: | Total factor productivity, growth accounting, regulation, energy networks, climate policy |
| Date: | 2022–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:anj:wpaper:016&r= |
| By: | Jacob Shapiro (Princeton University); Oliver Vanden Eynde (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, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS Paris - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement) |
| Abstract: | Can tax regimes shape the incentives to engage in armed conflict? Indian mining royalties benefit the States, but are set by the central government. India's Maoist belt is mineral-rich, and States are responsible for counterinsurgency operations. We exploit the introduction of a 10% ad valorem tax on iron ore that increased royalty collections of the affected states by a factor of 10. We find that the royalty hike was followed by a significant intensification of violence in districts with important iron ore deposits. The royalty increase was also followed by an increase in illegal mining activity in iron mines. |
| Keywords: | Natural Resources,Civil Conflict,Counterinsurgency |
| Date: | 2021–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03325898&r= |
| By: | K. Sudhir (Cowles Foundation, Yale University; Cowles Foundation, Yale University); Ramesh Shankar (University of Connecticut); Yuan Jin (Texas Tech University) |
| Abstract: | The paper develops a modeling framework to study how sustainability interventions impact consumer adoption of durable goods innovation, firm profit and environmental outcomes in equilibrium. Our two period model with forward looking consumers and a monopoly firm introducing an innovation in the second period accommodates three key features: (1) it builds on the psychology literature linking reactive and anticipatory guilt to consumers’ environmental sensitivity on initial purchase and upgrade decisions; (2) it disentangles environmental harm over the product life into that arising from product use and dumping at replacement; and (3) it clarifies how a taxonomy of innovations (function, fashion and use-efficiency) differ in how they provide value and cause environmental harm during use and dumping. Given how guilt impacts environmental sensitivity, the model allows for owners upgrading a product to be more environmentally sensitive than first time buyers; this makes dumping harm and in-use harm from products not fungible. We find that with fashion and function innovations, increasing consumer sensitivity to environmental harm can surprisingly result in increased environmental harm. Further, when consumers are very sensitive to environmental harm, firms will not inform (pre-announce to) consumers about the impending arrival of use-efficiency innovation; to minimize environmental harm, a sustainability advocate needs to inform consumers. Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, consumer environmental sensitivity does not always substitute for the role of sustainability advocates. Our results clarify how to design win-win policies for firms and the environment; and when advocates have complementary/ adversarial roles relative to firms to achieve sustainability goals. |
| Keywords: | Durable goods, Planned Obsolescence, Sustainability, Innovation, Environmental Costs |
| Date: | 2022–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:2320&r= |