Building on recent consensus findings from climate scientists, this article argues that stronger policy action to address global climate change is urgent. The article indicates how economists can better address this urgency and thereby contribute more effectively to climate policy discussions. Greater effectiveness requires that economists focus their policy assessments more sharply on the timing of policy implementation and the environmental and economic costs of delayed implementation. The article also shows that focusing more on the prospects for near-term implementation can alter the cost rankings of U.S. climate policy alternatives, increasing the attractiveness of some climate policy approaches that economists might otherwise tend to dismiss.
{"title":"Timing Is Everything: How Economists Can Better Address the Urgency of Stronger Climate Policy","authors":"L. Goulder","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez014","url":null,"abstract":"Building on recent consensus findings from climate scientists, this article argues that stronger policy action to address global climate change is urgent. The article indicates how economists can better address this urgency and thereby contribute more effectively to climate policy discussions. Greater effectiveness requires that economists focus their policy assessments more sharply on the timing of policy implementation and the environmental and economic costs of delayed implementation. The article also shows that focusing more on the prospects for near-term implementation can alter the cost rankings of U.S. climate policy alternatives, increasing the attractiveness of some climate policy approaches that economists might otherwise tend to dismiss.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"143 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49580622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews methods that use historical data on weather, climate, economic activity, and other variables to statistically measure the effect of climate on economic outcomes. This has been an active area of research for several decades, with many recent developments and discussions in the literature concerning the best way to estimate climate damages. The article first presents a conceptual framework for estimating the costs of climate change impacts. It then examines several approaches proposed in the literature that use historical weather data to econometrically estimate climate change impacts. These include cross section, linear and nonlinear panel methods, long differences, and partitioning variation. For each approach we describe the type of impacts (short-run versus long-run) estimated, the type of weather or climate variation used (e.g., cross-sectional, time-series, or a combination of the two using panel data), and the advantages and disadvantages of the approach. We conclude with a summary of our findings and priorities for future research.
{"title":"Estimating the Economic Impacts of Climate Change Using Weather Observations","authors":"Charles D. Kolstad, Frances C. Moore","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez024","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews methods that use historical data on weather, climate, economic activity, and other variables to statistically measure the effect of climate on economic outcomes. This has been an active area of research for several decades, with many recent developments and discussions in the literature concerning the best way to estimate climate damages. The article first presents a conceptual framework for estimating the costs of climate change impacts. It then examines several approaches proposed in the literature that use historical weather data to econometrically estimate climate change impacts. These include cross section, linear and nonlinear panel methods, long differences, and partitioning variation. For each approach we describe the type of impacts (short-run versus long-run) estimated, the type of weather or climate variation used (e.g., cross-sectional, time-series, or a combination of the two using panel data), and the advantages and disadvantages of the approach. We conclude with a summary of our findings and priorities for future research.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"62 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138526169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is increasing political interest in the United States in an economy-wide carbon tax. However, many environmental groups see the emissions uncertainty under a carbon tax as a significant shortcoming, leaving them reluctant to support carbon taxes without some assurance about emissions outcomes. This has created an interest in options for reducing a carbon tax’s inherent emissions uncertainty. One leading approach is a tax adjustment mechanism (TAM), which automatically adjusts the carbon tax rate based on the level of actual emissions relative to a legislated target. This article examines the role for TAMs in carbon tax design and the trade-offs of alternative designs. Using two recent TAM proposals (in former U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo’s [R-FL] MARKET CHOICE Act and for the Climate Leadership Council’s Carbon Dividends Plan), we show that TAMs can substantially reduce emissions uncertainty. We then show how different design choices affect expected costs and emissions outcomes. We show that most design features have clear trade-offs, improving some outcomes while worsening others. Thus the optimal design will depend on the specific goals of the TAM.
{"title":"Designing and Evaluating a U.S. Carbon Tax Adjustment Mechanism to Reduce Emissions Uncertainty","authors":"Marc A. C. Hafstead, Roberton C. Williams","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez018","url":null,"abstract":"There is increasing political interest in the United States in an economy-wide carbon tax. However, many environmental groups see the emissions uncertainty under a carbon tax as a significant shortcoming, leaving them reluctant to support carbon taxes without some assurance about emissions outcomes. This has created an interest in options for reducing a carbon tax’s inherent emissions uncertainty. One leading approach is a tax adjustment mechanism (TAM), which automatically adjusts the carbon tax rate based on the level of actual emissions relative to a legislated target. This article examines the role for TAMs in carbon tax design and the trade-offs of alternative designs. Using two recent TAM proposals (in former U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo’s [R-FL] MARKET CHOICE Act and for the Climate Leadership Council’s Carbon Dividends Plan), we show that TAMs can substantially reduce emissions uncertainty. We then show how different design choices affect expected costs and emissions outcomes. We show that most design features have clear trade-offs, improving some outcomes while worsening others. Thus the optimal design will depend on the specific goals of the TAM.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"95 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41892121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The design of climate change policy must address a number of key uncertainties, including the impacts of climate change, the economics of a carbon tax, and the global effort to combat climate change. A periodic review of each of these issues would provide new information and analysis that could be used to reduce uncertainty and inform the updating of a carbon tax over time. This article proposes and describes a straightforward and predictable approach for reviewing and updating a U.S. carbon tax. Under this “structured discretion” approach, the U.S. president would recommend an update to the carbon tax every 5 years, which would be based on government agency reviews of the environmental, economic, and multilateral conditions related to climate change. Following a process that is modeled after the expedited consideration of trade agreements, the U.S. Congress would agree to vote on the recommended carbon tax update. This process could also be coordinated with the timing of the emission mitigation pledging rounds under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. I suggest that the institutionalization of such an act-learn-act approach to carbon tax design could improve the political viability of a carbon tax and promote its adaptability to changing environmental, economic, and multilateral conditions, which would likely increase net social welfare over time.
{"title":"Carbon Tax Review and Updating: Institutionalizing an Act-Learn-Act Approach to U.S. Climate Policy","authors":"Joseph E. Aldy","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez019","url":null,"abstract":"The design of climate change policy must address a number of key uncertainties, including the impacts of climate change, the economics of a carbon tax, and the global effort to combat climate change. A periodic review of each of these issues would provide new information and analysis that could be used to reduce uncertainty and inform the updating of a carbon tax over time. This article proposes and describes a straightforward and predictable approach for reviewing and updating a U.S. carbon tax. Under this “structured discretion” approach, the U.S. president would recommend an update to the carbon tax every 5 years, which would be based on government agency reviews of the environmental, economic, and multilateral conditions related to climate change. Following a process that is modeled after the expedited consideration of trade agreements, the U.S. Congress would agree to vote on the recommended carbon tax update. This process could also be coordinated with the timing of the emission mitigation pledging rounds under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. I suggest that the institutionalization of such an act-learn-act approach to carbon tax design could improve the political viability of a carbon tax and promote its adaptability to changing environmental, economic, and multilateral conditions, which would likely increase net social welfare over time.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"76 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44845266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While market-based climate policy in the United States has been dominated by emissions trading, including policies at the state level and in proposed major federal legislation, a number of recent U.S. climate proposals focus on a carbon tax (or fee). Just as emissions trading programs have included some form of “price containment” measures, carbon tax policies may include “emissions assurance” provisions or, as we refer to them here, “environmental integrity mechanisms” (EIMs), which are designed to provide greater certainty about the resulting quantity of emissions. We propose three political economy reasons—as well as one practical reason relating to international climate agreements—that EIMs are likely to be an important component of any politically successful carbon tax (or fee) legislation in the U.S. Congress.
{"title":"The Political Economy of Hybrid Approaches to a U.S. Carbon Tax: A Perspective from the Policy World","authors":"S. Brooks, N. Keohane","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez022","url":null,"abstract":"While market-based climate policy in the United States has been dominated by emissions trading, including policies at the state level and in proposed major federal legislation, a number of recent U.S. climate proposals focus on a carbon tax (or fee). Just as emissions trading programs have included some form of “price containment” measures, carbon tax policies may include “emissions assurance” provisions or, as we refer to them here, “environmental integrity mechanisms” (EIMs), which are designed to provide greater certainty about the resulting quantity of emissions. We propose three political economy reasons—as well as one practical reason relating to international climate agreements—that EIMs are likely to be an important component of any politically successful carbon tax (or fee) legislation in the U.S. Congress.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"67 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42686915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Madison E. Condon, Michael A. Livermore, J. Shrader
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a new policy that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that rely on studies whose underlying data are not publicly available. While the EPA claims it is pursuing this policy in the interest of transparency, we argue that such a prohibition would greatly hinder, rather than help, the rulemaking process and would likely result in undesirable regulatory outcomes that fail to maximize economic welfare. This policy brief argues that a good faith effort to encourage data availability should focus on forward-looking incentives for transparency rather than the exclusion of a whole class of studies, and that weighting older studies based on their evidentiary value is preferable to removing valuable information from agency consideration.
{"title":"Assessing the Rationale for the U.S. EPA’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency In Regulatory Science” Rule","authors":"Madison E. Condon, Michael A. Livermore, J. Shrader","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez017","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a new policy that would prohibit the agency from issuing regulations that rely on studies whose underlying data are not publicly available. While the EPA claims it is pursuing this policy in the interest of transparency, we argue that such a prohibition would greatly hinder, rather than help, the rulemaking process and would likely result in undesirable regulatory outcomes that fail to maximize economic welfare. This policy brief argues that a good faith effort to encourage data availability should focus on forward-looking incentives for transparency rather than the exclusion of a whole class of studies, and that weighting older studies based on their evidentiary value is preferable to removing valuable information from agency consideration.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46943132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Economists have long favored a carbon tax as the most efficient policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One barrier to broader support for this policy option is its failure to ensure limits on emissions. Environmental groups, in particular, have expressed skepticism about carbon taxes for this failure to explicitly limit emissions. In response, policymakers have shown interest in a hybrid carbon tax that provides some assurance that emissions reduction targets will be met. To demonstrate how such a hybrid tax could work, I propose a prototype emissions assurance mechanism (EAM) that is practical, simple to implement, and easily understood. This EAM would be aimed at achieving a 45 percent reduction in energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, relative to 2005 emissions, by 2035. This would put the United States on track for deep emissions reductions by mid-century. More specifically, the EAM would track actual emissions in each year relative to an emissions pathway. If cumulative emissions exceeded benchmarks along the pathway, then the tax rate would increase annually more rapidly at a rate established in the initial legislation. The emissions pathway is a policy choice that determines desired emission reductions; I suggest that the pathway and EAM be built into carbon tax legislation.
{"title":"An Emissions Assurance Mechanism: Adding Environmental Certainty to a U.S. Carbon Tax","authors":"G. Metcalf","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez013","url":null,"abstract":"Economists have long favored a carbon tax as the most efficient policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One barrier to broader support for this policy option is its failure to ensure limits on emissions. Environmental groups, in particular, have expressed skepticism about carbon taxes for this failure to explicitly limit emissions. In response, policymakers have shown interest in a hybrid carbon tax that provides some assurance that emissions reduction targets will be met. To demonstrate how such a hybrid tax could work, I propose a prototype emissions assurance mechanism (EAM) that is practical, simple to implement, and easily understood. This EAM would be aimed at achieving a 45 percent reduction in energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, relative to 2005 emissions, by 2035. This would put the United States on track for deep emissions reductions by mid-century. More specifically, the EAM would track actual emissions in each year relative to an emissions pathway. If cumulative emissions exceeded benchmarks along the pathway, then the tax rate would increase annually more rapidly at a rate established in the initial legislation. The emissions pathway is a policy choice that determines desired emission reductions; I suggest that the pathway and EAM be built into carbon tax legislation.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"114 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43170635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There has been growing interest in using satellite data in environmental economics research. This is because satellite data are available for any region across the globe, provide frequent data over time, are becoming available at lower cost, and are becoming easier to process. While satellite data have the potential to be a powerful resource, these data have their own sources of biases and error, which could lead to biased inference, even if analyses are otherwise well-identified. This article discusses the potential benefits and pitfalls of using satellite data for causal inference, focusing on the more technical aspects of using satellite data. In particular, I discuss why it is critical for researchers to understand the error distribution of a given satellite data product and how these errors may result in biased inference. I provide examples of some common types of error, including nonrandom misclassification, saturation effects, atmospheric effects, and cloud cover. If researchers recognize and account for these potential errors and biases, satellite data can be a powerful resource, allowing for large-scale analyses that would otherwise not be possible.
{"title":"The Benefits and Pitfalls of Using Satellite Data for Causal Inference","authors":"Meha Jain","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez023","url":null,"abstract":"There has been growing interest in using satellite data in environmental economics research. This is because satellite data are available for any region across the globe, provide frequent data over time, are becoming available at lower cost, and are becoming easier to process. While satellite data have the potential to be a powerful resource, these data have their own sources of biases and error, which could lead to biased inference, even if analyses are otherwise well-identified. This article discusses the potential benefits and pitfalls of using satellite data for causal inference, focusing on the more technical aspects of using satellite data. In particular, I discuss why it is critical for researchers to understand the error distribution of a given satellite data product and how these errors may result in biased inference. I provide examples of some common types of error, including nonrandom misclassification, saturation effects, atmospheric effects, and cloud cover. If researchers recognize and account for these potential errors and biases, satellite data can be a powerful resource, allowing for large-scale analyses that would otherwise not be possible.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"157 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43858039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public discussions of environmentally motivated policies include much confusing talk about job loss. Does job loss in a polluting industry mean that others should endure dirty air or that complementary policies are needed? To clarify the jobs issue, I use concepts from research on international trade policy and its effects and apply them to recent job loss in the U.S. coal industry. The case of coal illustrates the economic adjustment that could arise from an environmental policy as well as the equity, efficiency, and political issues that adjustment raises. I show that for each coal job lost, earnings in the surrounding county fell by nearly $100,000, and that one-third of those who lost jobs did not move and remained unemployed. On average, the losses affected poorer counties and exacerbated income disparities between counties. Concurrently, coal county voters shifted toward pro-coal candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, helping him win Pennsylvania. More broadly, I argue that environmental adjustment assistance of some form may improve the equity and political feasibility of environmental policies that benefit many but harm some. However, the how and when of such assistance requires further study.
{"title":"How Should We Think about Environmental Policy and Jobs? An Analogy with Trade Policy and an Illustration from U.S. Coal Mining","authors":"Jeremy G. Weber","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez016","url":null,"abstract":"Public discussions of environmentally motivated policies include much confusing talk about job loss. Does job loss in a polluting industry mean that others should endure dirty air or that complementary policies are needed? To clarify the jobs issue, I use concepts from research on international trade policy and its effects and apply them to recent job loss in the U.S. coal industry. The case of coal illustrates the economic adjustment that could arise from an environmental policy as well as the equity, efficiency, and political issues that adjustment raises. I show that for each coal job lost, earnings in the surrounding county fell by nearly $100,000, and that one-third of those who lost jobs did not move and remained unemployed. On average, the losses affected poorer counties and exacerbated income disparities between counties. Concurrently, coal county voters shifted toward pro-coal candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, helping him win Pennsylvania. More broadly, I argue that environmental adjustment assistance of some form may improve the equity and political feasibility of environmental policies that benefit many but harm some. However, the how and when of such assistance requires further study.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"44 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45005829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Plastics have been instrumental in providing access to clean drinking water, medical applications, and improved hygiene and food safety. However, plastics also cause problems. More than 10 million tons of plastic enter the oceans annually. Marine plastic pollution has documented impacts on marine organisms and ecosystem services. The use of chemical additives in plastics also poses a potential threat to human health. While desirable, recycling of plastics is currently constrained by material and chemical complexity, limitations in available technologies, and market demands. This article provides a brief introduction to plastic materials, marine plastic pollution, and its potential effects on marine ecosystems and human health. We also discuss some of the policy and technical issues and suggest priorities for further research.
{"title":"Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues","authors":"B. C. Carney Almroth, H. Eggert","doi":"10.1093/reep/rez012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez012","url":null,"abstract":"Plastics have been instrumental in providing access to clean drinking water, medical applications, and improved hygiene and food safety. However, plastics also cause problems. More than 10 million tons of plastic enter the oceans annually. Marine plastic pollution has documented impacts on marine organisms and ecosystem services. The use of chemical additives in plastics also poses a potential threat to human health. While desirable, recycling of plastics is currently constrained by material and chemical complexity, limitations in available technologies, and market demands. This article provides a brief introduction to plastic materials, marine plastic pollution, and its potential effects on marine ecosystems and human health. We also discuss some of the policy and technical issues and suggest priorities for further research.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"317 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/reep/rez012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47414968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：