The high costs for the US economy of mitigating climate change have been cited by the Bush administration as one of the reasons for rejecting US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. A range of cost estimates are assessed in the IPCC’s third report (2001), but they are hedged with so many qualifications that it is not easy to reach useful conclusions. This paper organises some of the quantitative information on costs of greenhouse gas mitigation for the US published before the US rejection of Kyoto. The aim is to put them in a wider context, e.g., allowing for non-climate benefits, and to draw conclusions that are robust in the face of the uncertainties. Important lessons can be drawn for how costs can be reduced in any future international commitment by the US to reduce emissions. Provided policies are expected, gradual and well designed (e.g., through auctioned Annex I tradable permits with revenues used to reduce burdensome tax rates) the net costs for the US of mitigation are likely to be insignificant, that is within the range ±1% of GDP.
BarkerT.EkinsP. (2001). “How high are the costs of Kyoto for the US economy?” Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 4, University of East Anglia, UK.
2.
BarkerT.KoehlerJ.VillenaM. (2002). “The costs of greenhouse gas abatement: metaanalysis of post-SRES mitigation scenarios,” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies5: 135166.
3.
BoydR.KrutillaK.ViscusiW. K. (1995). “Energy taxation as a policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions: a net benefit analysis.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management29: 1-24.
4.
BurtrawD.KrupnikA.ManurE.PalmerK.PaulA.TomanM.BloydC. (2000). “Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector,” Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 99-51REV, Washington DC.
5.
BurtrawD.TomanM.A. (2000). “Estimating the ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the US,” Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Proceedings of an IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop, March, 2000, OECD, Paris.
6.
CooperA.LivermoreS.RossiV.WalkerJ.WilsonA. (1999). “Economic implications of reducing carbon emissions: The Oxford model.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue: 335-65.
7.
EkinsP.BarkerT. (2001). “Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading,” Journal of Economic Surveys, Special Issue, Vol.15 No.3, pp. 325-376, also published in Hanley, N. &Roberts, C. Eds. 2002 Issues in Environmental Economics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.75-126. Hammond, J., S. J. DeCanio, P. Duxbury, A. H. Sanstad, and C. H. Stinson (1997). Tax Waste, Not Work, San Francisco, CA: Redefining Progress.
8.
GoulderLawrence H. (1993). “Economy-wide emissions impacts of alternative energy tax proposals.” Report submitted to Climate Change Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July.
9.
GoulderLawrence H. (1995). “Effects of Carbon Taxes in an Economy with Prior Tax Distortions: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management29: 271-297.
10.
JacobyH.Sue WingI. (1999). “Adjustment time, capital malleability and policy cost.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue: 73-92.
11.
JorgensonDale W.GoettleRichard J.GaynorDaniel E.WilcoxenPeter J.SlesnickDaniel T. (1995). “Social Cost Energy Pricing, Tax Recycling and Economic Change.” Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Policy Branch. Washington, DC.
12.
JorgensonD.WilcoxenP. (1993). “Reducing US carbon emissions: an econometric general equilibrium assessment,” Resource and Energy Economics15(1): 7-25.
13.
McCubbinD. (1999). Co-Control Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Control Policies, prepared by Abt Associates and Pechan-Avanti Group for Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
14.
McKibbinW.RossM.ShackletonR.WilcoxenP. (1999). “Emissions trading, capital flows and the Kyoto Protocol.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue: 287-334.
15.
NorlandD.NinassiK. Y.JorgensonD. W. (1998). Price It Right. Energy Pricing and Fundamental Tax Reform, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC.
16.
ParryI. W. H.BentoA. (2000). “Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the ‘Double Dividend’ Hypothesis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management39(1): 67-96.
17.
RepettoR.AustinD. (1997). The Costs of Climate Protection: a Guide for the Perplexed, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
18.
SanstadA. H.DeCanioS. J.BoydG. A.KoomeyJ. G. (2001). “Estimating bounds on the economy-wide effects of the CEF policy scenarios.” Energy Policy29: 1299-311.
19.
ShackletonR.ShelbyM.CristofaroA.BrinnerR.YancharJ.GoulderL.JorgensonD.WilcoxenP.PaulyP.KaufmanR. (1992). The Efficiency Value of Carbon Tax Revenues, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November.
20.
ScheragaJ. D.LearyN. A. (1993). “Costs and side benefits of using energy taxes to mitigate global climate change,” Proceedings 1993 National Tax Journal, 133-38.
21.
SutherlandRonald J. (2000). “'No cost' efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S.: an economic perspective,” The Energy Journal21 (3): 89-112.
22.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (1998). Mitigation and Adaptation Cost Assessment: Concepts, Methods and Appropriate Use, UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Riso National Laboratory, Denmark.
23.
US CEA (1998). The Kyoto Protocol and the President’s Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis, Council of Economic Advisors, Washington, DC, July.
24.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (1998). Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity. Washington DC.
25.
US White House (2001). Statement by Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 29 March.
26.
ViscusiW. K.MagnatW. A.CarlinA.DreyfusM. K. (1994). “Environmentally responsible energy pricing,” The Energy Journal15(2): 23-42.
27.
WatsonR. T. (ed) (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and II to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press.
28.
WeyantJ.P.HillJ.N. (1999). “Introduction and overview.” The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Special Issue of The Energy Journal, WeyantJohn (ed.).
