Abstract: On efficiency grounds, the economics community has to date tended to emphasize price-based policies to address climate change—such as taxes or a “safety-valve” price ceiling for cap-and-trade—while environmental advocates have sought a more clear quantitative limit on emissions. This paper presents a simple modification to the idea of a safety valve: a quantitative limit that we call the allowance reserve. Importantly, this idea may bridge the gap between competing interests and potentially improve efficiency relative to tax or other price-based policies. The last point highlights the deficiencies in several previous studies of price and quantity controls for climate change that do not adequately capture the dynamic opportunities within a cap-and-trade system for allowance banking, borrowing, and intertemporal arbitrage in response to unfolding information.

Abstract: Food with inputs from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has met considerable skepticism among European Union (EU) consumers. The EU import ban on GM food has triggered a great deal of controversy and has been replaced by a mandatory labeling scheme. This study had two foci. First, we examined how different policies for the production and use of GMOs might influence the market outcome in consumer food markets. Second, we evaluated the welfare effects of the policy measures. We found that mandatory labeling often increases domestic welfare and, moreover, that in most cases it increases global welfare. On the other hand, a trade ban is more likely to decrease global welfare.

Abstract: This paper looks at the fuel choice of urban households in major Ethiopian cities, using panel data collected in 2000 and 2004. It examines use of multiple fuels by households in some detail, a topic not much explored in the household fuel-choice literature in general, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. The results suggest that as households’ total expenditures rise, they increase the number of fuels used, even in urban areas, and they also spend more on the fuels they consume (including charcoal but not wood). The results also show that even fuel types such as wood are not inferior goods. The results support more recent arguments in the literature (using Latin American and Asian data) that multiple fuel use (fuel stacking) better describes fuel-choice behavior of households in developing countries, as opposed to the idea that households switch (completely) to other (more expensive but cleaner) fuels as their incomes rise. This study shows the relevance of fuel stacking (multiple fuel use)in urban areas in sub-Saharan Africa. While income is an important variable, the results of this study suggest the need to consider other variables such as cooking and consumption habits, dependability of supply, cost, and household preferences and tastes to explain household fuel choice, as well as to recommend policies that address issues associated with household energy use.

Abstract: Cost containment has emerged as a major point of contention in the current congressional debate about designing a cap-and-trade program to limit future U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper reviews basic concepts and policy options for cost management, drawing on a March 2008 workshop sponsored by Resources for the Future (RFF), the National Commission on Energy Policy, and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. The different sources and temporal dimensions of cost uncertainty are explored, along with possible mechanisms for addressing short- and long-term cost concerns, including banking and borrowing, emissions offsets, a price cap (or safety valve), quantity-limited allowance reserve, and the concept of an oversight entity for GHG allowance markets modeled on the Federal Reserve. Recognizing that the inherent trade-off between environmental certainty and cost certainty has no perfect solution, the paper nonetheless concludes that numerous options exist for striking a reasonable and politically viable balance between these two objectives. In the effort to forge consensus around a particular set of options, it will be important for policymakers to strive to fit the remedy to the problem they are trying to solve and to preserve the underlying integrity of the overall program in terms of its long-term ability to sustain meaningful market incentives for low-carbon technologies.

Abstract: Despite the growing importance of voluntary programs as tools for environmental management, they have been subject to quite limited evaluation. Program evaluation in the absence of randomized experiments is difficult because the decision to participate may not be random and, in particular, may be correlated with the outcomes. The present study is designed to overcome these problems by gauging the environmental effectiveness of two voluntary climate change programs—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Wise program and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, or 1605(b)—with particular attention to the participation decision and how various assumptions affect estimates of program outcomes. For both programs, the analysis focuses on manufacturing firms and uses confidential census data to create a comparison group and to measure outcomes (expenditures on fuel and electricity). Overall, we find that that the effects from Climate Wise and 1605(b) on fuel and electricity expenditures are no more than 10 percent and probably less than 5 percent. Virtually no evidence suggests a statistically significant effect of either Climate Wise or 1605(b) on fuel costs. Some evidence suggests that participation in Climate Wise led to a slight (3–5 percent) increase in electricity costs that vanished after two years. Stronger evidence suggests that participation in 1605(b) led to a slight (4–8 percent) decrease in electricity costs that persisted for at least three years.

Abstract: Policies to cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the U.S. economy could pose significant costs on the electricity sector, which contributes roughly 40 percent of total CO2 emissions in the U.S. Using a detailed simulation model of the electricity sector, we evaluate alternative ways that emission allowances can be allocated. Most previous emissions trading programs have allocated the major portion of allowances for free to incumbent firms. In the electricity sector this approach would lead to changes in electricity price that vary by region primarily based primarily on whether prices are market-based or determined by cost-of-service regulation. Allocation to customers, which could be achieved by allocation to local distribution companies (retail utilities) would recover symmetry in the effect of free allocation and lead to signficiantly lower overall electricity prices. However, this form of compensation comes with an efficiency cost that will increase the overall cost of climate policy.

Abstract: In this paper, we discuss the design of carbon dioxide (CO2) taxes at the domestic and international level and the choice of taxes versus a cap-and-trade system. A strong case can be made for taxes on uncertainty, fiscal, and distributional grounds, though this critically hinges on policy specifics and how revenues are used. The efficient near-term tax is at least $5–$20 per ton of CO2 and the tax should be imposed upstream with incentives for downstream sequestration and abatement of other greenhouse gases. At the international level, a key challenge is the possibility that emissions taxes might be undermined through offsetting changes in other energy policies.