哪些“次优”气候政策是最好的?模拟乘用车的成本效益混合政策

IF 2.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Resource and Energy Economics Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101319
Chandan Bhardwaj , Jonn Axsen , David McCollum
{"title":"哪些“次优”气候政策是最好的?模拟乘用车的成本效益混合政策","authors":"Chandan Bhardwaj ,&nbsp;Jonn Axsen ,&nbsp;David McCollum","doi":"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>In the real-world of political opposition and complex market failures, carbon pricing alone will not achieve deep GHG mitigation targets. Hence, we search for the most cost-effective “second-best” policies. Focusing on the light-duty vehicle sector in the case of Canada, we compare several policies in terms of effectiveness (regarding 2030 GHG goals) and mitigation costs, namely: (i) a carbon tax; (ii) a vehicle </span>emission standard<span> (or VES); (iii) a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, and (iv) combinations of all three at various stringencies. In this effort, we apply the AUtomaker-consumer Model (AUM), which endogenously simulates consumer and automaker decisions and technological change. Comparing individual policies, the regulations are about three times more expensive than the carbon tax. Among “second-best” policies, the VES is cheaper than a ZEV mandate at lower stringencies, but at higher stringencies the two are similarly efficient (both incentivize widespread ZEV deployment). In policy mixes, cost-effectiveness is improved by a carbon tax. Specifically, inclusion of a CDN$100–150/tonne tax can achieve targets while being 30–40% less costly than a regulation alone. We suggest that policymakers implement carbon pricing as stringently as politically feasible (for efficiency), complemented by regulations as needed (for efficacy) to meet GHG targets.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":47952,"journal":{"name":"Resource and Energy Economics","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 101319"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which “second-best” climate policies are best? Simulating cost-effective policy mixes for passenger vehicles\",\"authors\":\"Chandan Bhardwaj ,&nbsp;Jonn Axsen ,&nbsp;David McCollum\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>In the real-world of political opposition and complex market failures, carbon pricing alone will not achieve deep GHG mitigation targets. Hence, we search for the most cost-effective “second-best” policies. Focusing on the light-duty vehicle sector in the case of Canada, we compare several policies in terms of effectiveness (regarding 2030 GHG goals) and mitigation costs, namely: (i) a carbon tax; (ii) a vehicle </span>emission standard<span> (or VES); (iii) a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, and (iv) combinations of all three at various stringencies. In this effort, we apply the AUtomaker-consumer Model (AUM), which endogenously simulates consumer and automaker decisions and technological change. Comparing individual policies, the regulations are about three times more expensive than the carbon tax. Among “second-best” policies, the VES is cheaper than a ZEV mandate at lower stringencies, but at higher stringencies the two are similarly efficient (both incentivize widespread ZEV deployment). In policy mixes, cost-effectiveness is improved by a carbon tax. Specifically, inclusion of a CDN$100–150/tonne tax can achieve targets while being 30–40% less costly than a regulation alone. We suggest that policymakers implement carbon pricing as stringently as politically feasible (for efficiency), complemented by regulations as needed (for efficacy) to meet GHG targets.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765522000367\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resource and Energy Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765522000367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在政治反对和复杂的市场失灵的现实世界中,仅靠碳定价无法实现深刻的温室气体减排目标。因此,我们寻找最具成本效益的“次优”政策。以加拿大的轻型汽车行业为例,我们从有效性(关于2030年温室气体目标)和缓解成本方面比较了几种政策,即:(i)碳税;(ii)车辆废气排放标准;(iii)零排放车辆(ZEV)的授权,以及(iv)在不同的严格程度上将这三者结合起来。在这项工作中,我们应用了汽车制造商-消费者模型(AUM),该模型内生地模拟了消费者和汽车制造商的决策和技术变革。比较个别政策,这些法规的成本大约是碳税的三倍。在“次优”政策中,在较低的严格程度下,VES比ZEV指令更便宜,但在较高的严格程度上,两者的效率相似(都激励了广泛的ZEV部署)。在政策组合中,碳税提高了成本效益。具体来说,包括100-150加元/吨税可以实现目标,同时比单独监管成本低30-40%。我们建议政策制定者在政治上可行的情况下严格实施碳定价(为了效率),并辅以必要的监管(为了效率)来实现温室气体排放目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Which “second-best” climate policies are best? Simulating cost-effective policy mixes for passenger vehicles

In the real-world of political opposition and complex market failures, carbon pricing alone will not achieve deep GHG mitigation targets. Hence, we search for the most cost-effective “second-best” policies. Focusing on the light-duty vehicle sector in the case of Canada, we compare several policies in terms of effectiveness (regarding 2030 GHG goals) and mitigation costs, namely: (i) a carbon tax; (ii) a vehicle emission standard (or VES); (iii) a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, and (iv) combinations of all three at various stringencies. In this effort, we apply the AUtomaker-consumer Model (AUM), which endogenously simulates consumer and automaker decisions and technological change. Comparing individual policies, the regulations are about three times more expensive than the carbon tax. Among “second-best” policies, the VES is cheaper than a ZEV mandate at lower stringencies, but at higher stringencies the two are similarly efficient (both incentivize widespread ZEV deployment). In policy mixes, cost-effectiveness is improved by a carbon tax. Specifically, inclusion of a CDN$100–150/tonne tax can achieve targets while being 30–40% less costly than a regulation alone. We suggest that policymakers implement carbon pricing as stringently as politically feasible (for efficiency), complemented by regulations as needed (for efficacy) to meet GHG targets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Resource and Energy Economics provides a forum for high level economic analysis of utilization and development of the earth natural resources. The subject matter encompasses questions of optimal production and consumption affecting energy, minerals, land, air and water, and includes analysis of firm and industry behavior, environmental issues and public policies. Implications for both developed and developing countries are of concern. The journal publishes high quality papers for an international audience. Innovative energy, resource and environmental analyses, including theoretical models and empirical studies are appropriate for publication in Resource and Energy Economics.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Observability and stakeholder conflict in resources management Accounting for baseline individual and site characteristics when estimating recreational demand for specialized activities Spreading the word! Effects of a randomized normative informational campaign on residential water conservation Delegation of environmental regulation and perceived corruption in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1