Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States

Rose, Adam and Zhang, ZhongXiang (2003): Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States.

Abstract

Emissions trading is an attractive candidate for implementing greenhouse gas mitigation, because it can promote both efficiency and equity. This paper analyzes the interregional impacts of alternative allocations of carbon dioxide emission permits within the U.S. The analysis is performed with the aid of a nonlinear programming model for ten EPA Regions and for six alternative permit distribution formulas. The reason that various alternatives need to be considered is that there is no universal consensus on the best definition of equity. Advance knowledge of absolute and relative regional economic impacts provides policy-makers with a stronger basis for making the choice.

The analysis yields several useful results. First, the simulations indicate that no matter how permits are allocated, this policy instrument can substantially reduce the cost of greenhouse gas mitigation for the U.S. in comparison to a system of fixed quotas for each of its regions. Interestingly, the welfare impacts of several of the allocation formulas differ only slightly despite the large differences in their philosophical underpinnings. Also, the results for some equity criteria differ greatly from their application in the international domain. For example, the Egalitarian (per capita) criterion results in the relatively greatest cost burden being incurred by one of the regions of the U.S. with the lowest per capita income.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Tradeable emission permits; climate policy; interregional equity
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs ; Distributional Effects ; Employment Effects; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q48 - Government Policy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q54 - Climate ; Natural Disasters and Their Management ; Global Warming; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A. 1996. GAMS: A User’s Guide, Redwood City, CA: Scientific Press.

(CCAP) Center for Clean Air Policy. 2002. State and Local Climate Change Policy Actions, Washington, DC.

Coase, R. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1-44.

Easterling, W. 1997. “Why Regional Studies are Needed in the Development of Full-Scale Integrated Assessment Modelling of Global Change Processes,” Global Environmental Change 7: 337-56.

Easterling, W., Polsky, C., Goodin, D., Mayfield, M., Muraco, W., and Yarnal, B. 1998. “Changing Places, Changing Emissions: The Cross-Scale Reliability of Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories in the U.S.,” Local Environment 3: 247-62.

Ellerman, A., Joskow, P., Schmalensee, R., Montero, J., and Bailey, E. 2000. Market for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program, New York: Cambridge University Press.

European Union. 1999. “Community Strategy on Climate Change: Council Conclusions,” No. 8346/99, 18 May, Brussels, Belgium.

Kopp, R., Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., and Toman, M. 1999. “A Proposal for Credible Early Action in the U.S. Climate Change Policy,” Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Rose, A. 1992. “Equity Considerations of Tradeable Carbon Entitlements,” in S. Barrett, M. Grubb, K. Roland, A. Rose, R. Sandor, and T. Tietenberg, Combating Global Warming: Study on a Global System of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements. New York: United Nations (UNCTAD).

Rose, A. and Oladosu, G. 2002. “Greenhouse Gas Reduction in the U.S.: Identifying Winners and Losers in an Expanded Permit Trading System,” Energy Journal 23(1): 1-18.

Rose, A. and Stevens, B. 1993. “The Efficiency and Equity of Marketable Permits for CO2 Emissions,” Resource and Energy Economics 15(1): 117-46.

Rose, A., and Stevens, B. K. 1998. “Will a Global Warming Agreement be Fair to Developing Countries?” International Journal of Environment and Pollution 9: 157-77.

Rose, A. and Stevens, B. K. 2001. “An Economic Analysis of Flexible Permit Trading in the Kyoto Protocol,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1(2): 219-42.

Rose, A., and Webber, D. 1992. “Interregional Equity and Acid Rain Policy,” Department of Energy, Environmental, and Mineral Economics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Rose, A., Stevens, B. K., Edmonds, J., and Wise, M. 1998. “International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy,” Environmental and Resource Economics 12(1): 25-51.

Solomon, B., and Lee, R. 2000. “Emissions Trading Systems and Environmental Justice,” Environment 42(8): 32-45.

Stevens, B., and Rose, A. 2002. “A Dynamic Analysis of the Marketable Permits Approach to Global Warming Policy: A Comparison of Spatial and Temporal Flexibility,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(1): 45-69.

Tietenberg, T. 1985. Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

(UNFCCC) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1996. “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Second Session, held at Geneva from 8 to 19 July 1996: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties on its Second Session,” FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add. 1, Bonn, Germany.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002a. “Annual State Personal Income,” http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002b. “Gross State Product Data,” http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/gsp/action.cfm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “State Summary Reports,” http://yosemite.epa.gov/globalwarming/ghg.nsf/emissions/State Summary Reports.

Zhang, Z. X. 2000a. “Estimating the Size of the Potential Market for the Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv - Review of World Economics 136 (3): 491-521.

Zhang, Z. X. 2000b. “The Design and Implementation of an International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18(3): 321-37.

Zhang, Z. X. 2001. “An Assessment of the EU Proposal for Ceilings on the Use of Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms,” Ecological Economics 37(1): 53-69.