Publicly announced greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets and emissions pricing strategies by individual governments may suffer from inherent commitment problems. When emission prices are perceived as short-lived, socially cost-effective upfront investment in climate technologies may be hampered. This paper compares the social abatement cost of a uniform GHG pricing system with two policy options for overcoming such regulatory uncertainty: One combines the emissions pricing with a state guarantee scheme whereby the regulatory risk is borne by the government and one combines the system with subsidies for upfront climate technology investments. A technology-rich computable general equilibrium model is applied that accounts for abatement both within and beyond existing technologies. Our findings suggest a tripling of abatement costs if domestic climate policies fail to stimulate investment in new technological solutions. Since the cost of funding investment subsidies is found to be small, the subsidy scheme performs almost as well as the guarantee scheme.
AmbecS.CohenM. A.ElgieS.LanoieP. (2013). “The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy7(1): 2-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reep/res016.
3.
BatailleC.JaccardM.NyboerJ.RiversN. (2009). “Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters.” The Energy Journal, special issue on Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Envi-ronment policies: Reconciling bottom-up and top-down: 93-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-5.
4.
BlackmonG.ZeckhauserR. (1992). “Fragile Commitments and the Regulatory Process.” Yale Journal on Regulation9: 73-105.
5.
BosettiV.CarraroC.GaleottiM.MassettiE.TavoniM. (2006). “WITCH: A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model.” The Energy Journal, special issue on Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Environment policies: Reconciling bottom-up and top-down: 13-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-2.
6.
BosettiV.VictorD. G. (2011). “Politics and Economics of Second-Best Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: The Importance of Regulatory Credibility.” The Energy Journal32(1): 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol32-No1-1.
7.
BretschgerL.RamerR.SchwarkF. (2011). “Growth Effects of Carbon Policies: Applying a Full Dynamic CGE model with Heterogeneous Capital.” Resource and Energy Economics33(4): 963-980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.06.004.
ByeB. (2008). “Macroeconomic modelling for energy and environmental analyses: Integrated economy-energy-environmental models as efficient tools.” Statistics Norway, Documents 2008/14.
11.
CheneryH. B. (1949). “Engineering production functions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics63: 507-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1882136.
12.
Climate Cure 2020 (2010). Measures and instruments for achieving Norwegian climate goals by 2020. A summary. TA 2678/2010. Climate and Pollution Agency, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Norwegian Public Road Administration, Statistics Norway. (Complete report in Norwegian: TA 2590/2010 available at www.klimakur2020.no).
13.
ConconiP.PerroniC. (2009). “Do credible domestic institutions promote credible international agreements?” Journal of International Economics79: 160-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2009.07.005.
14.
DellinkR. B. (2005). Modelling the Costs of Environmental Policy, A Dynamic Applied General Equilibrium Assessment, New Horizons in Environmental Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK/USA.
15.
DixitA. K.StiglitzJ. E. (1977). “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity.” American Economic Review67(3): 297-308.
16.
FahnT.IsaksenE.JacobsenK.Str0mB. (2013). MSG-TECH: Analysis and documentation of a general equilibrium model with endogenous climate technology adaptations. Report 47/2013, Statistics Norway.
17.
FloraxRaymond J.G.M.de GrootH.L.F.MulderP. (2011). Improving Energy Efficiency through Technology—Trends, Investment Behaviour and Policy Design, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK/USA.
18.
GerlaghR.LiseW. (2005). “Carbon taxes: A drop in the ocean or a drop that erodes the stone? The effects of carbon taxes on technological change.” Ecological Economics54: 241-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.037.
19.
GillinghamK.NewellR. G.PizerW. A. (2008). “Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis.” Energy Economics30(6): 2734-2753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.001.
20.
GoulderL. H. (1995). “Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: A Reader’s Guide.” International Tax and Public Finance2: 157-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495.
21.
GoulderL. H.SchneiderS. H. (1999). “Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies.” Resource and Energy Economics21: 211-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00004-4.
22.
GrayW. B.ShadbegianR. J. (2003). “Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management46(3): 384-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00031-7.
23.
HeggedalT.-R.JacobsenK. (2011).”Timing of innovation policies when carbon emissions are restricted: An applied general equilibrium analysis.” Resource and Energy Economics 33: 913-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.002.
24.
HeideK. M.HolmøyE.LerskauL.SolliI.F. (2004). Macroeconomic Properties of the Norwegian Applied General Equilibrium Model MSG6. Report 2004/18, Statistics Norway.
25.
HolmøyE.StrømB. (2004). The Social Cost of Government Spending in an Economy with Large Tax Distortions, A CGE Decomposition for Norway. Discussion Papers, 396, Statistics Norway.
26.
IsmerR.NeuhoffK. (2009). “Commitments through financial options: an alternative for delivering climate change obligations.” Climate Policy9(1): 9-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0358.
27.
Kanenergi/INSA (2009). Vurdering av biodrivstoff i transportsektoren, tiltak, virkemidler, effekter og kostnader i 2020 og 2030 [An assessment of biofuels in transportation], Report.
28.
KemfertC. (2005). “Induced technological change in a multi-regional, multi-sectoral, integrated assessment model (WIA-GEM): Impact assessment of climate policy strategies.” Ecological Economics54(2): 293-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.031.
29.
KiuilaO.RutherfordT. F. (2013). “The cost of reducing CO2 emissions: Integrating abatement technologies into economic modeling” Ecological Economics87: 62-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.006.
30.
LaitnerJ. A.HansonD. A. (2006). “Modeling Detailed Energy-Efficiency Technologies and Technology Policies within a CGE Framework.” The Energy Journal, special issue on Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Environment Policies: Reconciling bottom-up and top-down: 151-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-VolSI2006-NoSI2-8.
31.
MonteroJ. P. (2011). “A note on environmental policy and innovation when governments cannot commit.” Energy Economics33: 13-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.022.
32.
Norwegian Ministry of Finance (2010). The National Budget 2011, White Paper 1 (2010-2011).
33.
NPD (2010). Prospects for abatements in the Norweigan oil and gas industry. A sub-report from Climate Cure 2020, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD).
34.
PoppD. (2004). “ENTICE: Endogeneous technological change in the DICE model of global warming.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management48: 742-768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2003.09.002.
35.
PorterM.van Linde derC. (1995). “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives9(4): 97-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97.
36.
SavG. T. (1984). “The engineering approach to economic production functions revisited: An application to solarprocesses.” Journal of Industrial Economics33: 21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2098422.
37.
SFT (2007). Tiltak for reduksjon av klimagassutslipp i Norge, delnotat om virkning av mulige tiltak for reduserte utslipp fra kj0ret0y [Measures for mitigating GHG emissions in Norway, a sub-report on effects of measures to reduce emissions from vehicles], Norwegian Pollution Agency (Statens forurensningstilsyn, now: Milj0direktoratet] .
38.
SINTEF (2009). Tiltak og virkemidler for reduksjon av klimagasser i norsk prosessindustri [Measures and public instruments for abating GHG emissions from the Norwegian processsing industry] . Report A11606 SINTEF.
39.
SpillerP. (1996). “Institutions and commitment.” Industrial and Corporate Change5(2): 421-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/5.2.421.
40.
TELTEK (2009). CO2-fangst av utslipp fra industrianlegg [Carbon capture of emissions from manufacturing]. Report 2109020.
41.
UlphA.UlphD. (2013). “Optimal Climate Change Policies When Governments Cannot Commit.” Environmental and Resource Economics56(2): 161-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9682-7.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
