Search

The Green Financial Reform and Innovation Pilot Areas (GFRIPA) policy is a key institutional arrangement that enables China's green finance to advance from theory to practice. Few studies have quantitatively evaluated the policy's environmental performance. This study uses a generalized synthetic control method (GSCM) alongside panel data from Chinese prefecture-level cities since 2007 to assess the effects of the GFRIPA policy on energy consumption and pollution emissions and to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms. Results show that establishing the GFRIPA significantly reduces energy consumption and pollution emissions, and that the effect emerges immediately in the policy's issuance year. Possible mechanisms consist of the increase in urban green innovation, the ease of financing constraints, the optimization of industrial structure, and the enhancement of environmental governance. Heterogeneity analyses reveal that policy effects are more profound in cities with a higher degree of marketization and a higher level of education. The findings provide valuable insights into consistently promoting the GFRIPA policy to meet environmental goals for energy conservation and pollution reduction and ultimately advance green economies in developing nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider the incentives of a single firm to invest in a cleaner technology under quotas and emission taxation. We assume asymmetric information about the firm's cost of employing the new technology. Policy is set either before the firm invests (commitment) or after (time consistency). Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we find that with commitment (time consistency), quotas give higher (lower) investment incentives than taxes. With quotas (taxes), commitment generally leads to higher (lower) welfare than time consistency. Under commitment with quadratic abatement costs and environmental damages, a modified Weitzman rule applies and quotas usually lead to higher welfare than taxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper therefore looks closer into climate gas emission and the shift to non-fossil energy in Sweden. What types of organizations are behind the shift to non-fossil energy use, what are the relative effects on emissions, to what extent can these interactive dynamics be considered eco-innovations? Do these effects vary between public and private organizations, and if so, can they be related to specific institutions and policies? Methods include statistical survival analyses, in particular Cox regression. These analyses inform us why energy sources shift. Results indicate that wood fuel and solid waste increase as sources of energy while fossil oil has decreased between 2003 and 2010. This result is in line with industrial and environmental policies of the Swedish governments that present these facts as institutionally and policy-related 'green innovation'. However, our analysis contests such a conclusion and it is noticed that the shift to non-fossil sources of energy has not led to verifiable decreases in green-house gas emissions. Results instead suggest that 'green' innovation of non-fossil energy was mostly the effect of low-tech innovation in public organizations with no fundamental effect on CO emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]