Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

Living Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Policy Instruments for Mitigating Carbon Dioxide Emissions

  • Adam Rose
  • Brandt Stevens
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_953-1


Benefit-cost analysis

The systematic appraisal of all benefits and all costs of a specific course of action.

Cap and trade

The policy instrument of assigning a limited number of property rights to the environment (typically in the form of emission allowances) and then letting recipients of those rights to trade them in the marketplace to achieve the least-cost mitigation of a given pollutant.

Carbon tax

Imposing a fee per unit of carbon (or other greenhouse gas measured in carbon equivalents) in order to create a disincentive for pollution emissions.

Economic efficiency

Obtaining the maximum outcome from the use of limited resources, as in the maximum economic output given a fixed amount of inputs by a producer and the maximum utility from a given combination of goods and services by a consumer.

Economic policy instruments

The institutional means of implementing environmental goals.

Emission allowance auction

Selling emission allowances to the highest bidder, as opposed to...

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


  1. 1.
    (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. IPCC, GenfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arrow K (2013) Determining benefits and costs for future generations. Science 341:349–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stern N et al (2007) Stern review: the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ackerman B, Hassler W (1981) Clean coal, dirty air. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Sci New Ser 162(3859):1243–1248Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rose A (1990) Reducing conflict in global warming policy: the potential of equity as a unifying principle. Energ Policy 18:927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kverndokk S, Rose A (2008) Equity and justice in global warning policy. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 2:135–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose A, Stevens B, Edmonds J, Wise M (1998) International equity and differentiation in global warming policy. Environ Resour Econ 12:25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    (UNFCCC) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Historic Paris Agreement on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumol W, Oates W (1975) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41:477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hahn R (1984) Market power and transferable property rights. Q J Econ 99:753–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn R, Hester G (1989) Where did all the markets go? An analysis of EPA’s emissions trading program. Yale J Regul 6:109–153Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kolstad J, Wolak F (2008) Using environmental emissions permit prices to increase electricity prices: evidence from the California electricity market. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pezzey J (1992) The symmetry between controlling pollution by price and controlling it by quantity. Can J Econ 25:983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watson W, Ridker R (1984) Losses from effluent taxes and quotas under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 11:310–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carl J et al (2013) Renewable and distributed power in California – simplifying the regulatory maze. Hoover Institution/Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    California Public Utilities Commission (2016) Biennial RPS program updateGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    California Energy Commission (2017) Publicly owned utility verification reports – compliance period 1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Port of Stockton (2016) Renewable portfolio standard procurement plan updateGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens B, Rose A (2002) A dynamic analysis of the marketable permits approach to global warming policy: a comparison of spatial and temporal flexibility. J Environ Econ Manag 44:45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmalensee R (2012) Evaluating policies to increase electricity generation from renewable energy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6:45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schultz G, Baker III J (2017) A conservative answer to climate change. Wall Street Journal, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    British Columbia (2008) Climate action plan. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murray B, Rivers N (2015) British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: a review of the latest “grand experiment”. Energ Policy 86:674–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    British Columbia (2016) Climate leadership plan. British Columbia, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bovenberg A, Goulder L (2002) Environmental taxation and regulation. In: Auerbach A, Feldstein M (eds) Handbook of public economics. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1471–1545Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    California Air Resources Board (2010–2016) Cap-and-Trade regulationGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    California Air Resources Board (2008–2016) Mandatory reporting regulationGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    California Air Resources Board (2016) 2013–2014 Compliance obligation reportGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    California Air Resources Board (2013) Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds investment plan: fiscal years 2013–14 through 2015–16Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    California Air Resources Board (2016) Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds second investment plan: fiscal years 2016–17 through 2018–19Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    California Air Resources Board (2017) Annual report to the legislature on California climate investments using Cap-and-Trade auction proceedsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bushnell J et al (2007) California’s greenhouse gas policies: local solutions to a global problem? Center for the Study of Energy Markets, University of California Berkeley http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6m3355kj
  36. 36.
    Bushnell J et al (2008) Local solutions to global problems: climate change policy and regulatory jurisdiction. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2:175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bushnell J et al (2014) Downstream regulation of CO2 emissions in California’s electricity sector. Energ Policy 64:313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Price School of Public Policy, and Faculty Fellow, Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Brandt Stevens, President, BK Stevens ConsultingSacramentoUSA