Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 61–73 | Cite as

Environmental Policy Instruments and the Long-Run Management of a Growing Stock of Pollutant

  • Luc RougeEmail author
Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Most environmental damage can be reduced through investments in the management of the pollutants that cause this damage. In the case of climate change, for instance, the harmful effects of the accumulated stock of greenhouse gases depend on the adaptation effort. Our aim is to analyze which economic policy schemes can restore the social optimum in such contexts. We consider a simple endogenous growth model with a polluting non-renewable resource and directed technical change, in which the environmental damage (and unique externality) depends on the accumulated stock of pollutant as well as on a stock of green knowledge dedicated to its management. Here, the socially optimal policy consists in a tax on the environmental damage, which provides the right incentives to (a) invest in green knowledge and (b) mitigate pollutant flows. More usual—and more easily implementable—environmental policies like taxes on pollution flows (e.g., carbon tax) cannot yield first-best outcomes in this context since they do not provide the right incentives to invest in the management of the emitted pollutants. We nevertheless show how coupling such a type of policy tool with a subsidy to green R&D can restore the social optimum.

Keywords

Directed technical change Endogenous growth Environmental policy Non-renewable resources Research subsidy Second-best 

References

  1. 1.
    Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102, 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D., Kerr, W. (2016). Transition to clean technology. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 52–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benchekroun, H., & van Long, N. (1998). Efficiency inducing taxation for polluting oligopolists. Journal of Public Economics, 70, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Villemeur, E.B., & Leroux, J. (2015). Track and trade : a liability approach to climate policy, Working Paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=2596789.
  5. 5.
    Bretschger, L., & Karydas, C. (2017). Optimum growth and carbon policies with lags in the climate system, Environmental and Resource Economics, in Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carraro, C., De Cian, E., Tavoni, M. (2014). Human capital, innovation, and climate policy: an integrated assessment. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 19(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farzin, Y.H. (1996). Optimal pricing of environmental and natural resource use with stock externalities. Journal of Public Economics, 62, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forster, B.A. (1980). Optimal energy use in a polluted environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghersi, F. (2014). Low-carbon policy making vs. low-carbon policy modelling: state-of-the-art and challenges. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 19(5), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golosov, M., Hassler, J., Krusell, P., Tsyvinski, A. (2014). Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica, 82(1), 41–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goulder, L.H., & Mathai, K. (2000). Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimaud, A., Lafforgue, G., Magné, B. (2011). Climate change mitigation options and directed technical change: a decentralized equilibrium analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(4), 938–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimaud, A., & Rouge, L. (2005). Polluting non-renewable resources, innovation and growth: welfare and environmental policy. Resource and Energy Economics, 27(2), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimaud, A., & Rouge, L. (2014). Carbon sequestration, economic policies and growth. Resource and Energy Economics, 36(2), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoel, M., & Kverndokk, S. (1996). Depletion of fossil fuels and the impacts of global warming. Resource and Energy Economics, 18, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jun, E., Kim, W.J., Jeong, Y.H., Chang, S.H. (2010). Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Energy Policy, 38, 1470–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lennox, J.A., & Witajewski-Baltvilks, J. (2017). Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: implications for climate policy. Energy Economics, 67, 400–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liao, S.Y., Tseng, W.C., Chen, C.C. (2010). Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming. Energy Policy, 38, 7054–7069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pittel, K., & Bretschger, L. (2010). The implications of heterogeneous resource intensities on technical change and growth. The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d’Economique, 43(4), 1173–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plourde, C.G. (1972). A model of waste accumulation and disposal. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 5 (1), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schulze, W.D. (1974). The optimal use of non-renewable resources: the theory of extraction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solow, R.M. (1974). The economics of resources or the resources of economics. American Economic Review, 64, 1–14.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tahvonen, O. (1997). Fossil fuels, stock externalities, and backstop technology. Canadian Journal of Economics, 30(4a), 855–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ulph, A., & Ulph, D. (1994). The optimal time path of a carbon tax. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Ploeg, F., & Withagen, C. (1991). Pollution control and the ramsey problem. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Bank. (2017). State and trends of carbon pricing. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse Business SchoolToulouse Cedex 7France

Personalised recommendations