Integrating Energy and The Environment in The Marketplace

  • Daniel J. Dudek
Conference paper

Abstract

Economists have long believed that the internalization of environmental externalities is a positive and effective policy prescription for managing these problems. Although internalization can be accomplished through a wide array of policy instruments,2 economists have preferred the use of economic incentives. Most frequently these prescriptions have taken the form of charges or fees for emissions, in essence a special corrective tax.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Emission Trading Trading System Montreal Protocol Tradable Permit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albanese, Anthony S. and Meyer Steinberg, “Environmental Control Technology for atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Brookhaven National Laboratory, report DOE/EV-0079, May 1980,51 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Dudek, Daniel J., “Chlorofluorocarbon Policy: Choices and Consequences”, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, April 1987,26 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Dudek, Daniel J. and Alice M. LeBlanc, “Offsetting New CO2 Emissions: A Rational First Greenhouse Policy Step”, Contemporary Policy Issues, Vol. VIII, July 1990, pp. 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dudek, Daniel J. and John Pahnisano, “Emissions Trading: Why is this Thoroughbred Hobbled?”, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 217–256.Google Scholar
  5. Dudek, Daniel J., Alice M. LeBlanc, and Peter Miller, “CO2 and SO2: Consistent Policy Making in a Greenhouse”, Environmental Defense Fund, January 1990,31 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Elman, Barry, “Economic, Environmental, and Coal Market Impacts of SO2 Emissions Trading Under Alternative Acid Rain Control Proposals”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 1989.Google Scholar
  7. Flavin, Christopher, “Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy”, Worldwatch Paper 91, October 1989, Table 7, p. 69.Google Scholar
  8. Goldemberg, Jose, “Brazil’s Small Share of the Greenhouse”, New York Times, July 29, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Grubb, Michael, “The Greenhouse Effect: Negotiating Targets”, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Hahn, Robert and Gordon Hester, “Where Did All the Markets Go? — An Analysis of EPA’s Emissions Trading Program”, Yale Journal on Regulation, Volume 52,1986, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
  11. Hahn, Robert and Gordon Hester, “Marketable Permits: Lessons for Theory and Practice”, Ecology Law Quarterly, volume 16, no. 2,1989, pp. 361–406.Google Scholar
  12. Hahn, Robert and Robert N. Stavins, “Incentive-Based Environmental Regulation: A new Era for an Old Idea?”, Energy and Environmental Policy Center Discussion Paper, Harvard University, June 26,1990,40 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Liroff, Richard, Reforming Air Pollution Regulation: The Toil and Trouble of EPA’s Bubble, Conservation Foundation, Washington D.C., 1986, pp. xvi–xvii.Google Scholar
  14. Mellilo, J.M., and J.R. Gosz, “Interactions of Biogeochemical Cycles in Forest Ecosystems”, in The Major Biogeochemical Cycles and Their Interactions, edited by Bolin, Bert and Robert B. Cook, SCOPE 21, John Wiley, 1983, pp. 177–222.Google Scholar
  15. Monastersky, R., “Nations to Ban Ozone-Harming Compounds”, Science News, vol. 138, July 7,1990, p. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus, William D., The Efficient Use of Energy Resources, Cowles Foundation Monograph 26, Yale University, New Haven, 1979,161 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Nordhaus, William D., “How Fast Should We Graze the Global Commons?”, American Economic Review, vol. 72, no. 2, May 1982, pp. 242–6.Google Scholar
  18. Nordhaus, William D., “Count Before You Leap”, The Economist, July 7,1990, p. 22.Google Scholar
  19. Shapiro, Michael, and Ellen Warhit, “Marketable Permits: The Case of Chlorofluorocarbons”, Natural Resources Journal, vol. 23, July 1983, pp. 577–91.Google Scholar
  20. Tietenberg, T.H., Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., 1985,222 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Tripp, J.B.T. and DJ. Dudek, “Institutional Guide-lines for Designing Successful Transferable Rights Programs”, Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 6, pp. 381–403, June 1989.Google Scholar
  22. Tripp, J.B.T. and DJ. Dudek, “Comments of the Environmental Defense Fund on the EPCC Working Group III Economic Measures Paper”, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY, January 1990.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Acid Rain Emission Base Case Forecasts”, May 1989.Google Scholar
  24. Victor, David G., “Tradeable Permits and Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Some Issues for U.S. Negotiators”, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February 22,1990, 61 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Whittaker, R.H. and G.E. Likens, “Carbon in the Biota”, in Woodwell, G.M. and Pecan, E.V. (eds) Carbon and the Biosphere, AEC Symposium Series No. 30, Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Service, 1973, pp. 281–302.Google Scholar
  26. Woodwell, George M., “The Carbon Dioxide Question”, Scientific American, Vol. 238, No. 1, January 1978, pp. 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990–91, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, p. 144.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Dudek
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Defense FundNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations