Search

Several countries have imposed either a ban or a tax on single-use plastic packaging, motivated by their contribution to marine plastic pollution. This may lead consumers to opt for similar unregulated substitutes, potentially undermining or even counteracting the intended effect of the policy instrument. The purpose of this study is to theoretically and empirically compare the environmental and welfare effects of the first-best Pigouvian taxes on both plastic bags and a substitute (paper bags), with two alternative second-best policy instruments: a tax on plastic products alone, and a common uniform tax on all packaging materials. The empirical analysis accounts for two different types of environmental externalities from the use of both bag types: marine pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also compares results for two countries, Denmark and the USA, which differ in the demand for plastic and paper bags. The theoretical analysis shows that a unilateral tax on plastic bags should equal the marginal environmental damage of plastic bags minus a fraction of the marginal environmental cost of paper bags, hence being lower than the Pigouvian tax. The optimal common tax should equal a weighted average of the marginal environmental damage of the two bag types and would be lower than the Pigouvian tax on plastics if the marginal external cost of plastic bags exceeds that for paper bags. The empirical analysis shows that for default parameters, the variation in tax level across the studied scenarios is small. It also shows that if Pigouvian taxes cannot be implemented, a common uniform tax on both bag types would result in a higher welfare gain than a tax on plastic bags alone. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the level of the second-best taxes and their associated environmental and welfare impacts are sensitive to assumptions regarding the littering rate and decay rate of plastic bags in the marine environment. • A separate tax on plastic bags leads to substitution towards unregulated products. • Both plastic bags and substitutes cause marine pollution and GHG emissions. • We estimate first and second-best environmental taxes on plastic and paper bags. • Pigouvian taxes on both plastic and paper bags yield the highest welfare effect. • A uniform tax on all bags yields higher welfare than a single tax on plastic bags. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does climate-change mitigation affect the aggregate consumption risk borne by future generations? In other words, what is the ‘climate beta’? In this paper we argue using a combination of theory and integrated assessment modelling that the climate beta is positive and close to unity for maturities of up to about one hundred years. This is because the positive effect on the climate beta of uncertainty about exogenous, emissions-neutral technological progress overwhelms the negative effect on the climate beta of uncertainty about the carbon-climate-response, particularly the climate sensitivity, and the damage intensity of warming. Mitigating climate change therefore has no insurance value to hedge the aggregate consumption risk borne by future generations. On the contrary, it increases that risk, which justifies a relatively high discount rate on the expected benefits of emissions reductions. However, the stream of undiscounted expected benefits is also increasing in the climate beta, and this dominates the discounting effect so that overall the net present value of carbon emissions abatement is increasing in the climate beta. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a major carbon dioxide-emitting country, China set carbon trading market to reduce enterprise carbon emissions through the rational allocation of carbon quotas among different enterprises and regions. The market has also conducted a preliminary exploration for the country to achieve carbon dioxide emissions peak in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060 while actively addressing the challenges of global climate change. This study analysed the emission reduction effect of China's carbon trading pilot policy, especially the role of carbon quota and carbon trading price. The analysis used county-level panel data from 1997 to 2017, regarded the implementation of the carbon trading pilot policy as a quasi-natural experiment, and used the difference-in-differences method. The results showed that, first, the policy implementation not only reduced regional carbon emissions but also inhibited carbon dioxide emissions per capita, with long-term effects. Second, the carbon emission reduction effect brought by the carbon pilot policy showed significant heterogeneous results with the different degrees of regional carbon emissions and environmental supervision. The effect was greater in areas with higher carbon emission density and stronger legal supervision. Third, the difference in carbon quota allocations resulted in different emission reduction effects, among which the historical method had the strongest effect. The carbon quota price and number of enterprises participating carbon trading market were the key factors affecting carbon emission reduction. • This paper investigates the impact of carbon emission trading market on the carbon reduction. • China provides an excellent "Quasi-natural Experiment" for assessing the role of carbon emission trading market in environmental management. • It is found that policy implementation has significantly reduced various types of carbon emissions, and this reduction effect is long-term. • Stimulating the vitality of the carbon market and expanding the supply and demand of carbon quotas are the main ways to achieve carbon emission reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]