MARC Record from Library of Congress

LEADER: 02895cam a22003017a 4500
001 2007616473
003 DLC
005 20070831145856.0
007 cr |||||||||||
008 070830s2007 mau sb 000 0 eng
010 $a 2007616473
040 $aDLC$cDLC
050 00 $aHB1
100 1 $aBovenberg, Ary Lans.
245 10 $aIndustry compensation and the costs of alternative environmental policy instruments$h[electronic resource] /$cA. Lans Bovenberg, Lawrence H. Goulder, Mark R. Jacobsen.
260 $aCambridge, MA :$bNational Bureau of Economic Research,$cc2007.
490 1 $aNBER working paper series ;$vworking paper 13331
538 $aSystem requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.
538 $aMode of access: World Wide Web.
500 $aTitle from PDF file as viewed on 8/30/2007.
530 $aAlso available in print.
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references.
520 3 $a"This paper explores how the costs of meeting given aggregate targets for pollution emissions change with the imposition of the requirement that key pollution-related industries be compensated for potential losses of profit from the pollution regulation. Using analytically and numerically solved equilibrium models, we compare the incidence and economy-wide costs of emissions taxes, fuel (intermediate input) taxes, performance standards and mandated technologies in the absence and presence of this compensation requirement. Compensation is provided either through lump-sum industry tax credits or industry-specific cuts in capital tax rates. We decompose the added costs from the compensation requirement into (1) an increase in "intrinsic abatement cost," reflecting a lowered efficiency of pollution abatement, and (2) a "lump-sum compensation cost" that captures the efficiency costs of financing the compensation. The compensation requirement affects these components differently and thus can alter the cost-rankings of policies. When compensation is provided through tax credits, the lump-sum compensation cost is higher under the emissions tax than under performance standards and mandated technologies -- a reflection of the emission tax's higher compensation requirements. If in this setting the required pollution reduction is modest, imposing the compensation requirement causes the emissions tax to become more costly than command and control policies. In contrast, if required abatement is extensive, the emissions tax emerges as the most cost-effective policy because its relatively low intrinsic abatement costs assume greater importance"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site.
700 1 $aGoulder, Lawrence H.
700 1 $aJacobsen, Mark R.
710 2 $aNational Bureau of Economic Research.
830 0 $aWorking paper series (National Bureau of Economic Research : Online) ;$vworking paper no. 13331.
856 40 $uhttp://papers.nber.org/papers/w13331