Economists have tended to view emissions pricing (e.g., cap and trade or a carbon tax) as the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This paper offers a different view. Employing analytical and numerically solved general equilibrium models, it provides plausible conditions under which a more conventional form of regulation—namely, the use of a clean energy standard (CES)—is more cost-effective. The models reveal that the CES distorts factor markets less because it is a smaller implicit tax on factors of production. This advantage more than offsets the disadvantages of the CES when minor emissions reductions are involved. (JEL H23, Q42, Q48, Q54, Q58)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goulder et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: