What are the Costs of Meeting Distributional Objectives for Climate Policy? : The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Jürges, Hendrik / Ludwig, Sandra

Ed. by Auriol , Emmanuelle / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / Zulehner, Christine / Schirle, Tammy


IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.825

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.501
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.418
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.455

Access brought to you by:

provisional account

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing

 


Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

What are the Costs of Meeting Distributional Objectives for Climate Policy?

Ian W. H. Parry1 / Roberton C. Williams III2

1Resources for the Future,

2University of Maryland, Resources for the Future, and NBER,

Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 10, Issue 2, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.2552, December 2010

Publication History

Published Online:
2010-12-14

Abstract

This paper develops an analytical model to quantify the costs and distributional effects of various fiscal options for allocating the large rents created under proposed cap-and-trade programs to reduce domestic, energy-related CO2 emissions. The trade-off between cost effectiveness and distribution is striking. The welfare costs of different policies, accounting for linkages with the broader fiscal system, range from negative $6 billion/year to a positive $53 billion/year in 2020 (or from -$12 to almost $100 per ton of CO2 reductions). The least costly policy involves auctioning all allowances with revenues used to cut income taxes, while the most costly policies involve recycling revenues in lump-sum dividends or grandfathering emissions allowances. The least costly policy is regressive, however, while the dividend policy is progressive. Grandfathering permits is both costly and regressive. A distribution-neutral policy entails costs of $18 to $42 per ton.

Keywords: cap-and-trade; welfare cost; distributional incidence; revenue-recycling

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
IAN PARRY, CHANDARA VEUNG, and DIRK HEINE
Climate Change Economics, 2015, Volume 06, Number 04, Page 1550019
[2]
Roberton C. Williams III, Hal Gordon, Dallas Burtraw, Jared C. Carbone, and Richard D. Morgenstern
National Tax Journal, 2015, Volume 68, Number 1, Page 195
[3]
Matthias Kalkuhl, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Kai Lessmann
Environmental and Resource Economics, 2015, Volume 60, Number 1, Page 55

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.