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 / Schirle, Tammy / de Vries, Frans / Zulehner, Christine
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
What are the Costs of Meeting Distributional Objectives for Climate Policy?
1Resources for the Future, (email)
2University of Maryland, Resources for the Future, and NBER, (email)
Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. Volume 10, Issue 2, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2552, December 2010
- Published Online:
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.
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.