Search

Abstract: This paper develops an integrated model of the fuel and agricultural sectors to analyze the welfare and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) effects of the existing Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and a carbon price policy. The conceptual framework shows that these policies differ in the incentives they create for the consumption and mix of different types of biofuels and in their effects on food and fuel prices and GHG emissions. We also simulate the welfare and GHG effects of these three policies which are normalized to achieve the same level of US GHG emissions. By promoting greater production of food-crop based biofuels, the RFS is found to lead to a larger reduction in fossil fuel use but also a larger increase in food prices and a smaller reduction in global GHG emissions compared to the LCFS and carbon tax. All three policies increase US social welfare compared to a no-biofuel baseline scenario due to improved terms-of-trade, even when environmental benefits are excluded; global social welfare increases with a carbon tax but decreases with the RFS and LCFS due to the efficiency costs imposed by these policies, even after including the benefits of mitigating GHG emissions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: 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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]