1932

Abstract

Climate change poses an existential threat. Theoretical and empirical research suggest that carbon pricing and green R&D support are the right tools, but their implementation can be improved. Other policies, such as standards, bans, and targeted subsidies, also all have a role to play, but they have often been incoherent, and their implementation is delicate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-015113
2023-09-13
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/15/1/annurev-economics-051520-015113.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-015113&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hémous D. 2012. The environment and directed technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:1131–66
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aghion P, Akcigit U, Howitt P 2014. What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory?. Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 2B P Aghion, SN Durlauf 515–63. Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hémous D, Martin R, van Reenen J. 2016. Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. J. Political Econ. 124:1–51
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambec S, Crampes C. 2020. Energy efficiency in buildings: from theory to practice Unpublished manuscript Toulouse Sch. Econ. Toulouse, Fr.:
  5. Bénabou R, Tirole J. 2010. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77:3051–19
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bénabou R, Tirole J. 2016. Mindful economics: the production, consumption, and value of beliefs. J. Econ. Perspect. 30:3141–64
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger J. 2019. Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. J. Consum. Behav. 18:3233–46
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blaise G, Glachant M. 2019. Quel est l'impact des travaux de rénovation énergétique des logements sur la consommation d'énergie? Une évaluation ex post sur données de panel. Rev. Énerg. 646:46–60
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanchard O, Tirole J. 2021. Les grands défis économiques Rep. Fr. Stratég. Paris: https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-2021-rapport-les_grands_defis_economiques-juin_0.pdf
  10. Borenstein S, Davis LW. 2016. The distributional effects of US clean energy tax credits. Tax Policy Econ. 30:1191–234
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chancel L. 2022. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain. 5:931–38
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coady D, Parry IWH, Le N-P, Shang B. 2019. Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: an update based on country-level estimates IMF Work. Pap. 19/89 Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
  13. Cochrane JH. 2020. Central banks and climate: a case of mission creep. Hoover Institution Nov. 13. https://www.hoover.org/research/central-banks-and-climate-case-mission-creep
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cole WJ, Greer D, Denholm P, Frazier AW, Machen S et al. 2021. Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system for the United States. Joule 5:71732–48
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Crampes C, Léautier TO. 2021. White certificates and competition. Concurrences 1:98493
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dechezleprêtre A, Fabre A, Kruse T, Planterose B, Sanchez Chico A, Stantcheva S. 2022. Fighting climate change: international attitudes toward climate policies OECD Econ. Dep. Work. Pap. 1714 Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. Paris:
  17. Delpla J, Gollier C. 2019. Pour une banque centrale du carbone. Asterion Anal 1: http://groupelavigne.free.fr/delpla1019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dixit AK, Pindyck RS. 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  19. Douenne T, Fabre A. 2022. Yellow vests, pessimistic beliefs, and carbon tax aversion. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 14:181–110
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Edgecliffe-Johnson A, Nauman B. 2019. Fossil fuel divestment has “zero” climate impact, says Bill Gates. Financial Times Sept. 17
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Epley N, Gilovich T. 2016. The mechanics of motivated reasoning. J. Econ. Perspect. 30:3133–40
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eur. Comm 2021.. Fit for 55”: delivering the EU's 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality Commun. COM(2021) 550 final Eur. Comm. Brussels, Belg: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur211249.pdf
  23. Ewald J, Sterner T, Sterner E. 2022. Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters. Resour. Energy Econ. 70:101331
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Falkner R, Nasiritousi N, Reischl G. 2022. Climate clubs: politically feasible and desirable?. Clim. Policy 22:4480–87
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fowlie M, Greenstone M, Wolfram C. 2018. Do energy efficiency investments deliver? Evidence from the weatherization assistance program. Q. J. Econ. 133:31597–644
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garicano L. 2021. Towards a feasible carbon border adjustment mechanism: explanation and analysis of the European Parliament's proposal Tech. Rep. Eur. Parliam. Strasbourg, Fr.:
  27. Glachant M, Kahn V, Lévêque F. 2021. Quand les économies d'énergie deviennent fictives. Les Échos Dec. 21
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gollier C. 2022. The cost-efficiency carbon pricing puzzle. Work. Pap. 18–952 Toulouse Sch. Econ. Toulouse, Fr.:
  29. Gollier C, Jullien B, Treich N. 2000. Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the “precautionary principle. .” J. Public Econ. 75:2229–53
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gollier C, Pouget S. 2022. Investment strategies and corporate behavior with socially responsible investors: a theory of active ownership. Economica 89:356997–1023
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Golman R, Loewenstein G, Moene KO, Zarri L. 2016. The preference for belief consonance. J. Econ. Perspect. 30:3165–87
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Greenstone M, Nath I. 2020. Do renewable portfolio standards deliver cost-effective carbon abatement? BFI Work. Pap. 2019–62 Becker Friedman Inst. Econ. Chicago:
  33. Greenstone M, Sunstein C, Ori S. 2020. Fuel economy 2.0. Harv. Environ. Law 44:11–42
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gruber J. 2003. The new economics of smoking. NBER Rep. 3. https://www.nber.org/reporter/summer-2003/new-economics-smoking
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Guyomard H, Bureau JC, Chatelier V, Detang-Dessendre C, Dupraz P et al. 2020. The Green Deal and the CAP: policy implications to adapt farming practices and to preserve the EU's natural resources Study, Eur. Parliam. Strasbourg, Fr: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/629214/IPOL_STU(2020)629214_EN.pdf
  36. Heal G. 2022. The economics of carbon accounting and carbon offsets NBER Work. Pap. 30649
  37. IEA (Int. Energy Agency) 2020. Sustainable recovery World Energy Outlook Spec. Rep. Int. Energy Agency Paris:
  38. IEA (Int. Energy Agency) 2021. Conditions and requirements for the technical feasibility of a power system with a high share of renewables in France towards 2050 Country Rep. Int. Energy Agency Paris:
  39. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Climate Change) 2022. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Summary for policymakers Summ., Intergov. Panel Climate Change Geneva, Switz: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
  40. Jarvis S. 2021. The economic costs of NIMBYism: evidence from renewable energy projects Work. Pap. 311 Energy Inst. Haas, Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
  41. Laffont JJ, Tirole J. 1996. Pollution permits and compliance strategies. J. Public Econ. 62:1–285–125
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lemoine D. 2020. The climate risk premium: how uncertainty affects the social cost of carbon. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 8:27–57
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Leroutier M. 2022. Carbon pricing and power sector decarbonization: evidence from the UK. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 111:102580
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Levinson A. 2019. Energy efficiency standards are more regressive than energy taxes: theory and evidence. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6:S1S7–36
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Marcu A, Mehling M, Cosbey A. 2020. Border carbon adjustments in the EU: issues and options. Rep. Eur. Roundtable Climate Change Sustain. Transit. Brussels, Belg.:
  46. Mehling MA, van Asselt H, Das K, Droege S, Verkuijl C. 2019. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am. J. Int. Law 113:3433–81
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Metcalf GE, Stock JH. 2022. The macroeconomic impact of Europe's carbon taxes. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. MIT Energy Initiat 2022. The future of energy storage: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Rep. MIT Energy Initiat., Mass. Inst. Technol. Cambridge: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The-Future-of-Energy-Storage.pdf
  49. Moisson PH. 2022. Ethics and impact investment Unpublished manuscript Toulouse Sch. Econ. Toulouse, Fr.:
  50. Nordhaus W. 2015. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:41339–70
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nordhaus W. 2021. Dynamic climate clubs: on the effectiveness of incentives in global climate agreements. PNAS 118:45e2109988118
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pigou AC. 1920. The Economics of Welfare London: Macmillan & Co.
  53. Pindyck RS. 2017. The use and misuse of models for climate policy. Rev. Env. Econ. Policy. 11:1100–14
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pisani-Ferry J. 2021. Climate policy is macroeconomic policy, and the implications will be significant Policy Br. 21-20 Peterson Inst. Int. Econ. Washington, DC:
  55. Pizer WA, Campbell EJ. 2021. Border carbon adjustments without full (or any) carbon pricing. Resources for the Future July 29
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rennert K, Errickson F, Prest BC, Rennels L, Newell RG et al. 2022. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature 610:687–92
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Rosenbloom D, Markard J, Geels FW, Fuenfschilling L. 2020. Opinion: why carbon pricing is not sufficient to mitigate climate change and how “sustainability transition policy” can help. PNAS 117:168664–68
    [Google Scholar]
  58. RTE (Réseaux Transp. Electr.) 2021. Energy pathways to 2050 Rep. Réseaux Transp. Electr. Paris:
  59. Stern N, Stiglitz JE, Taylor C. 2022. The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Methodol. 29:3181–216
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Stiglitz JE. 2019. Addressing climate change through price and non-price interventions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 119:594–612
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tirole J. 2023. Socially responsible agencies. Compet. Law Policy Debate 7:4171–77
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Trinks A, Mulder M, Scholtens B. 2022. External carbon costs and internal carbon pricing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 168:112780
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ulph A, Ulph D. 1997. Global warming, irreversibility and learning. Econ. J. 107:442636–50
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Weitzman ML. 2017. On a world climate assembly and the social cost of carbon. Economica 84:336559–86
    [Google Scholar]
  65. World Bank 2010. World development report 2010: development and climate change Rep. World Bank Washington, DC: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4387
  66. Wu C, Zhang XP, Sterling M. 2021. Economic analysis of power grid interconnections among Europe, North-East Asia, and North America with 100% renewable energy generation. IEEE Open Access J. Power Energy 8:268–80
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-015113
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error