|
on Resource Economics |
|
Issue of 2024‒05‒27
four papers chosen by |
| By: | John Hassler (Stockholm University); Per Krusell (Stockholm University); Conny Olovsson (Sveriges Riksbank) |
| Abstract: | This paper provides scientific starting points for climate-economy modeling. The sensitivity of climate change to emissions of greenhouse gases is uncertain. The same is true about the long-run economic consequences of climate change. Therefore, the authors argue that traditional cost-benefit analyses including calculations of optimal carbon taxes are, and will remain, unconvincing. Climate-economic models are nevertheless useful for finding effective climate policies that are robust to different assumptions about these uncertainties. This paper outlines such a model. A key result is that a transition to climate neutrality can be implemented at an acceptably low cost. The authors discuss the policies required for this transition, compare climate policies in the European Union and the United States, and provide suggestions for future research. |
| Keywords: | Climate-economic modeling, climate change, climate neutrality, emissions, climate transition |
| JEL: | Q54 E1 |
| Date: | 2024–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iie:wpaper:wp24-8&r=res |
| By: | Emanuel Gasteiger (Institute for Mathematical Economics and Statistics, Vienna University of Technology); Michael Kuhn (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)); Matthias Mistlbacher (Institute for Mathematical Economics and Statistics, Vienna University of Technology); Klaus Prettner (Department of Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business) |
| Abstract: | While automation technologies replace workers in ever more tasks, robots, 3D printers, and AI-based applications require substantial amounts of electricity. This raises concerns regarding the feasibility of the energy transition towards mitigating climate change. How does automation interact with conventional capital in driving energy demand and how do taxes on robots and taxes on electricity affect the adoption of robots and AI? To answer these questions, we generalize a standard economic growth model with automation and electricity use. In addition, we augment the model with electricity taxes and robot taxes and show the mechanisms by which these taxes affect automation. We find that an electricity tax serves a similar purpose as a robot tax. However, a robot tax is much more difficult to implement from a practical perspective. |
| Keywords: | Automation, Robots, Growth, Electricity Use, Energy Taxes, Robot Taxes |
| JEL: | O11 O14 H21 H23 |
| Date: | 2024–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wiw:wiwwuw:wuwp364&r=res |
| By: | Uribe, Adolfo (Universidad de Talca); Chávez, Carlos (Universidad de Talca); Gómez, Walter (Universidad de la Frontera); Jaime, Marcela (School of Management and Business, Universidad de Concepción); Bluffstone, Randy (Portland State University and EfD Initia) |
| Abstract: | We estimate the key private benefits from a program to improve ambient air quality during winter in central Chile by replacing inefficient wood-fired home heating stoves with more efficient pellet stoves. We are interested in the private benefits to households because they represent the additional value of the program and likely drive private adoption. Combining electronic stove surface temperature and air pollution monitoring with household surveys, we estimate the effects of adoption on household fuel expenditures, indoor temperatures, and indoor air pollution concentrations (PM2.5). We also explore heterogeneous effects of the program by income group and energy poverty status. Our results suggest that, after controlling for observable characteristics of individuals and dwellings, users of pellet stoves on average enjoy 14% lower indoor PM2.5 concentrations compared with those who have traditional stoves. Lower-income and energy-poor households receive much greater than average improvements in indoor air pollution than those with higher-incomes, driving the overall sample estimate and indicating that the program is progressive in this dimension. While those who use more efficient pellet stoves have more stable indoor temperatures than those using traditional stoves, we find no differences in mean temperatures. The improved heating stove has significantly higher operating costs, and we find that these costs are most salient for low-income and energy-poor households. |
| Keywords: | Air pollution; energy transition; environmental policies; household behavior; heating; stoves |
| JEL: | C21 Q48 Q52 Q55 Q58 |
| Date: | 2022–10–24 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:gunefd:2022_018&r=res |
| By: | Wibbenmeyer, Matthew (Resources for the Future); Joiner, Emily (Resources for the Future); Lennon, Connor; Walls, Margaret A. (Resources for the Future); Ma, Lala (Resources for the Future) |
| Abstract: | The costs of natural disasters in the United States have increased in recent years, and, among disaster types, losses to wildfires have risen most sharply. The distribution of costs across households depends, in part, on household incomes and relative willingness to accept (WTA) wildfire risk. Studies have shown that households living in high wildfire hazard areas have higher incomes on average, but this could change with changes in risks, market environments (e.g., insurance), and regulation. In this paper, we use a discrete choice residential sorting model to study relative WTA wildfire hazard among households with different levels of income and wildfire experience. A spatial discontinuity in California’s natural hazard disclosure laws allows us to distinguish aversion to hazard, when it is made salient to buyers at the time of purchase, from preferences toward correlated amenities, such as forest cover. We have three core findings. First, regulatory disclosure matters. In areas where disclosure is required, households are averse to fire hazard. Second, aversion is increasing in income, which suggests that lower-income households may replace high-income households in high-hazard areas, raising concerns about distributional justice. Finally, individual experience with wildfire events does not increase aversion to hazard, suggesting that experience is not a replacement for disclosure in motivating informed decision-making. |
| Date: | 2024–05–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-24-05&r=res |