Skip to main content

A Sketch of Environmental Microeconomics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economics for Environmental Studies

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Business and Economics ((STBE))

  • 3003 Accesses

Abstract

The preceding section closed by stating a serious problem: market failure. It is at this point that a third “protagonist” is called upon the “stage” of economics to make amends, the government. To see how this might be done in principle, we introduce the concept of “internalizing externalities”, an idea that the media love to quote but seem to not always fully understand. Then, we turn from the principle to its practical application. Pollution taxes and command and control are introduced as alternative environmental policy instruments, and are evaluated according to economic criteria. This chapter is supposed to show how microeconomic analysis, as discussed in the preceding chapter, is useful for the analysis of environmental problems and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We are talking about the firm as it is stylized in mainstream microeconomic models. It is not so easy in reality. Here, the manager of a firm might care for the environment because his/her conscience does not allow doing otherwise, or because doing otherwise would draw punishment from the consumers, or employees (or even his/her children at home at the breakfast table!). In this introductory textbook we ignore these real deviations from the standard model of the firm. We may do so without worrying too much about this omission because the standard model of the firm catches an important part of reality. If it were otherwise we would not suffer as much from environmental problems as we do.

  2. 2.

    The Pigouvian tax is the Godfather of all kinds of ecological taxes that are presently used in most industrial countries. See Dias Soares et al. (2010) for a recent overview. The authors emphasize that the numerous examples of environmental taxes from the many different countries discussed in their analysis are all part of the “Pigouvian approach” (p. 23).

  3. 3.

    It may be noted that the tax rate drives a wedge between the price consumers pay (\( {p^{{**}}} \)) and the price producers receive (\( {p^{{**}}} - {t^{{**}}} \)). Market price increases due to the imposition of the tax, although the price increase (\( {p^{{**}}} - {p^{*}} \)) is smaller than the tax rate (\({t^{**}}\)). So the burden of the tax is shared among producers and consumers in that consumers pay a higher price and producers receive a lower price compared to the situation without tax.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Endres (2011, pp. 174–187), for a critical appraisal.

  5. 5.

    Issues of monetary valuation of environmental resources are discussed, e.g., in Hackett (2011), Tisdell (2010), and particularly sceptically so in Hahnel (2011). A practical application of these methods (to the cost of oil spills) is in Carson et al. (2004).

  6. 6.

    Calculus club, mini session: the marginal abatement cost function is the first order derivative of the total abatement cost function.

  7. 7.

    In formal terms, \( i \in \left\{ {\left. {1,2} \right\}} \right. \) holds.

  8. 8.

    For simplicity, we interpret “not to be exceeded” such that the two individual emission quantities add up to exactly \( \bar{e} \).

  9. 9.

    “ab initio” is a mildly snobbish expression for “right from the start”.

  10. 10.

    With the term “general”, we mean that a tax rate is not differentiated across firms.

  11. 11.

    A prerequisite for the evolution of a market is that emission rights are scarce. If the firms are “flooded” with costless pollution allowances, no one wants to buy and the equilibrium permit price is zero.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., Ellerman et al. (2007), Endres (2011), Faure and Peeters (2008) for details and assessment.

  13. 13.

    The curves in this figure are the same as in Fig. 7.4 illustrating the pollution tax in the standard and pricing approach. This is to facilitate the comparison between these two standard-oriented environmental policy instruments.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., Kollmann and Schneider (2010).

  15. 15.

    The problem referred to above is called a “prisoners’ dilemma” in microeconomics. See, e.g., Estrin et al. (2008, pp. 343–346), Varian (2010, pp. 527–529). A critical assessment of the prisoners’ dilemma’s application to global environmental problems is in Endres (2011, pp. 228–235, 247–249).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Aldy and Stavins (2007), Endres (2011), Finus (2008), Woerdman (2004).

References

  • Aldy JE, Stavins RN (2007) Architectures for agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT et al (2004) Valuing oil spill prevention. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias Soares C, Milne JE, Ashiabor H, Kreiser L, Deketelaere K (eds) (2010) Critical issues in environmental taxation, vol VIII. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman A, Buchner B, Carraro C (2007) Allocation in the European emissions trading scheme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endres A (2011) Environmental economics. Theory and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrin S, Laidler D, Dietrich M (2008) Microeconomics, 5th edn. Pearson, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure M, Peeters M (2008) Climate change and European emissions trading, lessons for theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure M, Skogh G (2003) The economic analysis of environmental policy and law: an introduction. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Finus M (2008) Game theoretic research on the design of international environmental agreements: insights, critical remarks and future challenges. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 2:29–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett SC (2011) Environmental and natural resources economics, 4th edn. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahnel R (2011) Green economics. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmann A, Schneider F (2010) Why does environmental policy in representative democracies tend to be inadequate? A preliminary public choice analysis. Sustainability 2:3710–3734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterner T, Coria J (2011) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell CA (2010) Resource and environmental economics. Modern issues and applications. World Scientific Printers, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian HR (2010) Intermediate microeconomics. A modern approach, 8th edn. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesmeth H (2012) Environmental economics. Theory and policy in equilibrium. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Woerdman E (2004) The institutional economics of market-based climate policy. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfred Endres .

1 Electronic Supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Endres, A., Radke, V. (2012). A Sketch of Environmental Microeconomics. In: Economics for Environmental Studies. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31193-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31193-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31192-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31193-2

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics