Carbon abatement in the fuel market with biofuels: Implications for second best policies

A carbon tax on fuel would penalize carbon intensive fuels like gasoline and shift fuel consumption to less carbon intensive alternatives like biofuels. Since biofuel production competes for land with agricultural production, a carbon tax could increase land rents and raise food prices. This paper analyzes the welfare effect of a carbon tax on fuel consisting of gasoline and biofuel in the presence of a labor tax, with and without a biofuel subsidy. The market impacts of a carbon tax are also compared with that of a subsidy. Findings show that if a carbon tax increases biofuel demand, the tax interaction effect due to higher fuel prices is exacerbated by higher land rent and food prices and greater erosion of the carbon tax base. Thus, the second best optimal carbon tax for fuel is lower with biofuel in the fuel mix, especially if biofuel is subsidized.     

Market equilibrium and welfare effects of a fuel tax in China: The impact of consumers' response through driving patterns

We investigate the market equilibrium and welfare effects of a fuel tax in China relative to an alternative policy instrument that rations the number of new automobile sales through auctioned quotas. Unlike those of previous studies, our modeling approach incorporates both household car purchase and utilization decisions, the latter of which have been ignored in previous studies on China's fuel tax. Ignoring this margin of choice will underestimate the fuel tax's ability to mitigate externalities. Using detailed household-level panel data and a fixed effects econometric specification, we estimate the fuel price elasticity of vehicle miles traveled is −0.59 on average. The results of the counterfactual analysis suggest that a 51% increase in tax-inclusive gasoline prices will reduce car sales by 24.9% but increase social welfare to a degree that depends on vehicles' lifetime. We find that compared to auctioned quotas, the fuel tax results in greater car sales but higher social welfare.     

Strategic climate policy with offsets and incomplete abatement: Carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade

This paper provides a first analysis of a “policy bloc” of fossil fuel importers which implements an optimal climate policy, faces a (non-policy) fringe of other fuel importers, and an exporter bloc, and purchases offset from the fringe. We compare a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade scheme for the policy bloc, in either case accompanied by an efficient offset mechanism for reducing emissions in the fringe. The policy bloc is shown to prefer a tax over a cap, since only a tax reduces the fuel export price and by more when the policy bloc is larger. Offsets are also more favorable to the policy bloc under a tax than under a cap. The optimal offset price under a carbon tax is below the tax rate, while under a cap and free quota trading the offset price must equal the quota price. The domestic carbon and offset prices are both higher under a tax than under a cap when the policy bloc is small. When the policy bloc is larger, the offset price can be higher under a cap. Fringe countries gain by mitigation in the policy bloc, more under a carbon tax since the fuel import price is lower.     

Fuel consumption and gasoline prices: The role of assortative matching between households and automobiles

Analyses of policies to reduce gasoline consumption have focused on two effects, a compositional effect on the fuel economy of the automotive fleet and a utilization effect on how much people drive. However, the literature has missed a third effect: a matching effect, in which policies change how high-utilization households are matched to fuel-efficient vehicles in equilibrium. We show that higher gas prices should lead to stronger assortative matching. Empirical estimates using US micro-level data are consistent with this hypothesis. We find a $0.50 increase in the gas tax would reduce US gas consumption by 0.8% through the matching effect alone, bringing annual environmental benefits of about $1.7 billion.     

The welfare effects of fuel conservation policies in a dual-fuel car market: Evidence from India

We estimate a model of vehicle choice and kilometers driven to analyze the long-run impacts of fuel conservation policies in the Indian car market. We simulate the effects of petrol and diesel fuel taxes and a diesel car tax, taking into account their interactions with the pre-existing petrol fuel tax and car sales taxes. At levels sufficient to reduce total fuel consumption by 7%, the increased diesel and petrol fuel taxes both yield deadweight losses (net of externalities) of about 4 (2010) Rs./L. However, at levels sufficient to reduce total fuel consumption by 2%, the increased petrol fuel tax results in a deadweight loss per liter of fuel conserved that is greater than that caused by the diesel fuel tax. This reflects both the high pre-existing tax on petrol fuel and the high own-price elasticities of fuel demand in India. A tax on diesel cars that results in the same diesel market share as the large diesel fuel tax actually has a negative deadweight loss per liter of fuel conserved. The welfare effects of all three policy instruments are positive, once the external benefits of reducing fuel consumption are added to the excess burden of taxation.     

Are energy efficiency standards justified?

This paper develops an analytical framework for comparing the welfare effects of energy efficiency standards and pricing policies for reducing gasoline, electricity, and nationwide carbon emissions. The model is parameterized with US data and includes key externalities in the energy/transportation sectors and possible underinvestment in energy efficiency due to “misperceptions” over energy savings. Even with large misperceptions, the extra welfare gains from complementing efficient pricing policies with energy efficiency standards are zero for reducing gasoline and 5 percent for reducing electricity. And when viewed as substitutes, these standards forgo 60 percent or more of the potential welfare gains from corresponding pricing policies. A combination of energy efficiency and emissions standards is more than three times as costly as carbon pricing when there is no misperception over energy savings, and even with large misperceptions, combining carbon pricing with gasoline/electricity taxes is better than combining it with energy efficiency standards.     

Is there really a green paradox?

In the absence of a CO₂ tax, the anticipation of a cheaper renewable backstop increases current emissions of CO₂. Since the date at which renewables are phased in is brought forward and more generally future emissions of CO₂ will decrease, the effect on global warming is unclear. Green welfare falls if the backstop is relatively expensive and full exhaustion of fossil fuels is optimal, but may increase if the backstop is sufficiently cheap relative to the cost of extracting the last drop of fossil fuels plus marginal global warming damages as then it is attractive to leave more fossil fuels unexploited and thus limit CO₂ emissions. We establish these results by analyzing depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels followed by a switch to a clean renewable backstop, paying attention to timing of the switch and the amount of fossil fuels remaining unexploited. We also discuss the potential for limit pricing when the non-renewable resource is owned by a monopolist. Finally, we show that if backstops are already used and more backstops become economically viable as the price of fossil fuels rises, a lower cost of the backstop will either postpone fossil fuel exhaustion or leave more fossil fuel in situ, thus boosting green welfare. However, if a market economy does not internalize global warming externalities and renewables have not kicked in yet, full exhaustion of fossil fuel will occur in finite time and a backstop subsidy always curbs green welfare.     

Is there really a green paradox?

In the absence of a CO₂ tax, the anticipation of a cheaper renewable backstop increases current emissions of CO₂. Since the date at which renewables are phased in is brought forward and more generally future emissions of CO₂ will decrease, the effect on global warming is unclear. Green welfare falls if the backstop is relatively expensive and full exhaustion of fossil fuels is optimal, but may increase if the backstop is sufficiently cheap relative to the cost of extracting the last drop of fossil fuels plus marginal global warming damages as then it is attractive to leave more fossil fuels unexploited and thus limit CO₂ emissions. We establish these results by analyzing depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels followed by a switch to a clean renewable backstop, paying attention to timing of the switch and the amount of fossil fuels remaining unexploited. We also discuss the potential for limit pricing when the non-renewable resource is owned by a monopolist. Finally, we show that if backstops are already used and more backstops become economically viable as the price of fossil fuels rises, a lower cost of the backstop will either postpone fossil fuel exhaustion or leave more fossil fuel in situ, thus boosting green welfare. However, if a market economy does not internalize global warming externalities and renewables have not kicked in yet, full exhaustion of fossil fuel will occur in finite time and a backstop subsidy always curbs green welfare.     

Green tax reform,endogenous innovation and the growth dividend

We study theoretically and numerically the effects of an environmental tax reform using endogenous growth theory. In the theoretical segment, mobile labor between manufacturing and R&D activities, and elasticity of substitution between labor and energy in manufacturing lower than unity allow for a growth dividend, even if we consider preexisting tax distortions. The scope for innovation is reduced when we consider direct financial investment in the lab, or elastic labor supply. We then apply the core theoretical model to a real growing economy and find that a boost in long-run economic growth following such a carbon policy is a possible outcome. Redistribution of additional carbon tax revenue by lowering capital taxation performs best in terms of effciency measured by aggregate welfare. In terms of equity among social segments the progressive character of lump-sum redistribution fails when we consider very high emissions reduction targets.     

Achievements,challenges and global implications of China’s carbon neutral pledge

China has been committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. China’s pledge of carbon neutrality will play an essential role in galvanising global climate action, which has been largely deferred by the Covid-19 pandemic. China’s carbon neutrality could reduce global warming by approximately 0.2–0.3 °C and save around 1.8 million people from premature death due to air pollution. Along with domestic benefits, China’s pledge of carbon neutrality is a “game-changer” for global climate action and can inspire other large carbon emitters to contribute actively to mitigate carbon emissions, particularly countries along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) routes. In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, it is necessary to decarbonise all sectors in China, including energy, industry, transportation, construction, and agriculture. However, this transition will be very challenging, because major technological breakthroughs and large-scale investments are required. Strong policies and implementation plans are essential, including sustainable demand, decarbonizing electricity, electrification, fuel switching, and negative emissions. In particular, if China can peak carbon emissions earlier, it can lower the costs of the carbon neutral transition and make it easier to do so over a longer time horizon. China’s pledge of carbon neutrality by 2060 and recent pledges at the 26^th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) are significant contributions and critical steps for global climate action. However, countries worldwide need to achieve carbon neutrality to keep the global temperature from growing beyond the level that will cause catastrophic damages globally.     

Conversion of plant materials into hydroxymethylfurfural using ionic liquids

The use of fossil fuels now induces two major issues. First, fossil fuel burning is increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations and, in turn, global warming. Second, fossil fuel resources are limited and will thus decrease in the long run. As a potential solution, there is a need for ecological manufacturing processes that convert raw plant materials into chemical products. For instance, raw plants can be directly converted into hydroxymethylfurfural, which is a versatile intermediate for the synthesis of valuable biofuels such as dimethylfuran and 5-ethoxymethyl-2-furfural. This technology has two benefits for chemical sustainability. First, the pretreatment step is eliminated, thus contributing to reduction of CO₂ emissions. Second, plants are sustainable resources versus fossil fuels, which are limited. Here, we review current sustainable technologies for the production of biobased products and hydroxymethylfurfural from plants, using in particular ionic liquids. Plant sources include poplar, switchgrass, miscanthus, weed plants, and agave species.     

Robust technology policy against emission leakage: The case of upstream subsidies

Asymmetric regulation of a global pollutant between countries can alter the competitiveness of industries and lead to emissions leakage, which hampers countries’ welfare. In order to limit leakage, governments consider supporting domestic trade-exposed firms by subsidizing their investments in abatement technology. The suppliers of such technologies tend to be less than perfectly competitive, particularly when both emissions regulations and advanced technologies are new. In this context of twin market failures, we consider the relative effects and desirability of subsidies for abatement technology. We find a more robust recommendation for upstream subsidies than for downstream subsidies. Downstream subsidies tend to increase global abatement technology prices, reduce pollution abatement abroad and increase emission leakage. On the contrary, upstream subsidies reduce abatement technology prices, and hence also emissions leakage.     

Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems.

Bioenergy cropping systems could help offset greenhouse gas emissions, but quantifying that offset is complex. Bioenergy crops offset carbon dioxide emissions by converting atmospheric CO2 to organic C in crop biomass and soil, but they also emit nitrous oxide and vary in their effects on soil oxidation of methane. Growing the crops requires energy (e.g., to operate farm machinery, produce inputs such as fertilizer) and so does converting the harvested product to usable fuels (feedstock conversion efficiency). The objective of this study was to quantify all these factors to determine the net effect of several bioenergy cropping systems on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. We used the DAYCENT biogeochemistry model to assess soil GHG fluxes and biomass yields for corn, soybean, alfalfa, hybrid poplar, reed canarygrass, and switchgrass as bioenergy crops in Pennsylvania, USA. DAYCENT results were combined with estimates of fossil fuels used to provide farm inputs and operate agricultural machinery and fossil-fuel offsets from biomass yields to calculate net GHG fluxes for each cropping system considered. Displaced fossil fuel was the largest GHG sink, followed by soil carbon sequestration. N20 emissions were the largest GHG source. All cropping systems considered provided net GHG sinks, even when soil C was assumed to reach a new steady state and C sequestration in soil was not counted. Hybrid poplar and switchgrass provided the largest net GHG sinks, >200 g CO2e-C x m(-2) x yr(-1) for biomass conversion to ethanol, and >400 g CO2e-C x m(-2) x yr(-1) for biomass gasification for electricity generation. Compared with the life cycle of gasoline and diesel, ethanol and biodiesel from corn rotations reduced GHG emissions by approximately 40%, reed canarygrass by approximately 85%, and switchgrass and hybrid poplar by approximately 115%.     

Carbon leakage and capacity-based allocations: Is the EU right?

Competitiveness and carbon leakage are major concerns for the design of CO₂ emissions permits markets. In the absence of a global carbon tax and of border carbon adjustments, output-based allocation is a third-best solution and is actually implemented (Australia, California, New Zealand). The EU has followed a different route; free allowances are allocated to existing or new capacities in proportion to a benchmark, independent of actual production. This paper compares these two schemes in a formal setting and shows that the optimal one is in fact a combination of both schemes, or output-based allocation alone if uncertainty is limited. A key assumption of our analysis is that the short-term import pressure depends both on the existing capacities and the level of demand, which is typical in capital intensive and internationally traded sectors. A calibration of the model is used to discuss the EU scheme for the cement sector in the third phase of the EU-ETS (2013–2020). This allows for a quantification of various policies in terms of welfare, investment, production, company profits, public revenues and leakage.     

Vertical fiscal externalities and the environment

We show that imposition of a state-level environmental tax in a federation crowds out pre-existing federal taxes. We explain how this vertical fiscal externality can lead unilateral state-level environmental policy to generate a welfare gain in the implementing state, at the expense of other states, even absent any environmental benefits. Using a computable general equilibrium model of the Canadian federation, we show that vertical fiscal externalities can be the major determinant of the welfare change following environmental policy implementation by a state government. Our numerical simulations indicate that – as a consequence of vertical fiscal externalities – state governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 20 percent without any net cost to themselves.     

Is there a double-dividend from anti-sprawl policies?

This paper examines the welfare effects of anti-sprawl policies, such as development tax, in a simple spatial explicit urban model with two market failures - urban decline at the city core and underprovision of open space amenities at the urban fringe - and pre-existing distortionary property tax, used to fund public services and improvements to mitigate urban decline. Consistent with prior double-dividend literature, there is a tax interaction effect that occurs between the development tax and the pre-existing property tax. However, there are two fundamental differences between the tax interaction effect identified here and that of prior literature. Ours one has two components: First, there is a cost-side tax interaction effect that is ‘spatially’ concentrated at the urban fringe, as only agents at the urban fringe alter their behavior in response to the development tax. Second, there is also a benefit-side tax interaction effect, as increases in open space at the urban fringe are capitalized into housing prices throughout the city. In contrast to prior literature, we find that the empirical importance of the combined tax interaction effect is of substantially less importance and, as a consequence, the likelihood of a ‘double-dividend’ is higher than in prior studies. Further, we show that the development tax should be part of the local tax system, even in the absence of open space benefits.     

Biofuels and agriculture: a past perspective and uncertain future

The US corn ethanol industry has grown from virtually nothing in the early 1980s to over 14 billion gallons in 2011. Subsidies have been an important impetus for the industry, and they have existed in one form or another throughout the life of the industry. This paper provides (1) a brief look at the history of the linkages between energy and agriculture and how they have changed with biofuels; (2) a review of some of the major impacts of the US corn ethanol program; and (3) analysis of prospective impacts of cellulosic biofuels. There is no doubt that biofuels have brought about a new era for global agriculture. Historically, the prices of agricultural and energy products moved in response to supply and demand factors relevant to each market, but moved largely independent of one another. Corn ethanol has changed that, and today there is a link between crude oil and corn that is driven by the demand side. Since agricultural commodity prices are linked both on the demand and supply sides, the corn–crude oil link spills over to other agricultural commodities as well. Development of cellulosic biofuels has been much slower than hoped. The feedstocks are more expensive than initially believed. Conversion technologies remain uncertain and expensive. There are many uncertainties through the cellulosic supply chain, and government policy remains uncertain as well. Thus, the future of the cellulosic biofuels industry is, at this point, an open question.     

Do renewable energy policies reduce carbon emissions? On caps and inter-industry leakage

In a parsimonious two-sector general equilibrium model, we challenge the widely-held tenet that within a cap-and-trade system renewable energy policies have no effect on carbon emissions. If the cap does not capture all sectors, we demonstrate that variations of a renewable energy subsidy change aggregate carbon emissions through an inter-industry leakage effect. We decompose this effect into intuitively intelligible components that depend in natural ways on measurable elasticity parameters. Raising the subsidy always reduces emissions if funded by a lump-sum tax, reinforcing recent findings that tightening environmental regulation can cause negative leakage. However, if the subsidy is funded by a levy on electricity, it can increase emissions. These results provide a valuable basis for an informed design of renewable energy policies and an accurate assessment of their effectiveness. We highlight how a state-of-the-art statistic used by governments to gauge such effectiveness, “virtual emission reductions”, is biased, because inter-industrial leakage effects are not captured.     

Reduction in global habitat loss from fossil-fuel-dependent increases in cropland productivity

Terrestrial biodiversity loss and climate change, driven mainly by loss of habitat to agriculture and fossil fuel (FF) use, respectively, are considered among the world's greatest environmental threats. However, FF-dependent technologies are currently essential for manufacturing synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (SNFs) and synthetic pesticides (SPs) critical to increasing agricultural productivity, which reduces habitat loss. Fossil fuel use increases CO₂ levels, further enhancing agricultural productivity. Based on estimates of global increases in yields from SNFs, SPs, and atmospheric CO₂ fertilization, I estimated that FF-dependent technologies are responsible for at least 62.5% of current global food production (GFP) from cropland. Thus, if FF use is eschewed in the future, maintaining current GFP means croplands would have to increase from 12.2% of global land area (GLA) excluding Antarctica to 32.7%. The additional 20.4% of GLA needed exceeds habitat lost currently to cropland (12.2% of GLA) and cumulative conservation areas globally (14.6% of GLA). Thus, although eliminating FF use could reduce climate change, its unintended consequences may be to significantly exacerbate biodiversity loss and indirectly increase food costs, reducing food security which, moreover, disproportionately affects the poor. Although it may be possible to replace SNFs and SPs with FF-free technologies, such substitutes have not yet been demonstrated to be sufficiently economical or efficient. In the interim, meeting global food demand and keeping food prices affordable would increase habitat conversion and food prices. These trade-offs should be considered in analyses of climate change policies.     

Tax evasion and optimal environmental taxes

This paper introduces a new argument to the debate about the role of environmental taxes in modern tax systems. Some environmental taxes, particularly taxes on gasoline or electricity, are more difficult to evade than taxes on labor or income. When the tax base is shifted in a revenue-neutral manner toward these environmental taxes, the result is a net reduction in the amount of tax evasion. Using a carbon tax as a motivating example, the “tax evasion effect” is shown to sharply reduce the welfare cost of controlling emissions. A simple computable general equilibrium model suggests that the impact of considering tax evasion can be large: costs are lowered by 28% in the United States, by 89% in China, and by 97% in India. In countries with high levels of pre-existing tax evasion, a carbon tax will pay for itself through improvements in the efficiency of the tax system.