衡量电动汽车的环境效益(相对于未购买的汽车)

E. Muehlegger, D. Rapson
{"title":"衡量电动汽车的环境效益(相对于未购买的汽车)","authors":"E. Muehlegger, D. Rapson","doi":"10.3386/w27197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The true net environmental benefit of an electric vehicle (EV) is measured relative to the vehicle that an EV buyer would have bought and driven had they not opted for an EV. This “counterfactual” vehicle cannot be observed, but its fuel economy can be estimated. We use quasi-experimental variation in a generous California EV subsidy program to show that buyers of EVs would have, on average, purchased relative fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars had they not gone electric. The true incremental pollution abatement arising from the EV is thus substantially smaller when compared to this appropriate reference vehicle, as opposed to, say, the average new passenger car.","PeriodicalId":18934,"journal":{"name":"National Bureau of Economic Research","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Electric Vehicles (Relative to the Car that Wasn’t Bought)\",\"authors\":\"E. Muehlegger, D. Rapson\",\"doi\":\"10.3386/w27197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The true net environmental benefit of an electric vehicle (EV) is measured relative to the vehicle that an EV buyer would have bought and driven had they not opted for an EV. This “counterfactual” vehicle cannot be observed, but its fuel economy can be estimated. We use quasi-experimental variation in a generous California EV subsidy program to show that buyers of EVs would have, on average, purchased relative fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars had they not gone electric. The true incremental pollution abatement arising from the EV is thus substantially smaller when compared to this appropriate reference vehicle, as opposed to, say, the average new passenger car.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National Bureau of Economic Research\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National Bureau of Economic Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3386/w27197\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Bureau of Economic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/w27197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

电动汽车(EV)的真正净环境效益是相对于电动汽车购买者在没有选择电动汽车的情况下购买和驾驶的车辆来衡量的。这种“反事实”车辆无法被观察到,但它的燃油经济性可以被估计出来。我们在加州一项慷慨的电动汽车补贴计划中使用了准实验变量来表明,如果电动汽车的购买者没有购买电动汽车,他们平均会购买相对节能的汽油动力汽车。因此,与普通的新乘用车相比,电动汽车带来的真正增量污染减排要小得多。
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
Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Electric Vehicles (Relative to the Car that Wasn’t Bought)
The true net environmental benefit of an electric vehicle (EV) is measured relative to the vehicle that an EV buyer would have bought and driven had they not opted for an EV. This “counterfactual” vehicle cannot be observed, but its fuel economy can be estimated. We use quasi-experimental variation in a generous California EV subsidy program to show that buyers of EVs would have, on average, purchased relative fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars had they not gone electric. The true incremental pollution abatement arising from the EV is thus substantially smaller when compared to this appropriate reference vehicle, as opposed to, say, the average new passenger car.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maximum Employment and the Participation Cycle Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans, and Same-Sex Relationships Welfare and Output with Income Effects and Taste Shocks Which Markets (Don't) Drive Pharmaceutical Innovation? Evidence From U.S. Medicaid Expansions School Reopenings, Mobility, and COVID-19 Spread: Evidence from Texas
×
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