zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

The secondary benefits of climate change mitigation: an overlapping generations approach. (English) Zbl 1170.91496
Summary: We modify a model of climate and economy to address the effects of the reduction in atmospheric pollutants which occurs as a result of climate change mitigation policies. In particular, the reduction of sulphur dioxide \((\text{SO}_{2})\) emissions as a result of climate change policies leads to reduced statistical morbidity and infant mortality, but increased short term climate change. It remains the case, even with the consideration of secondary benefits, that there are welfare costs of GHG emission control to almost all working-age agents alive when the policies are imposed, which suggests that the consideration of secondary benefits alone may not be sufficient to provoke aggressive action on climate change.
91B76 Environmental economics (natural resource models, harvesting, pollution, etc.)
PDF BibTeX Cite
Full Text: DOI
[1] Amann M, Cofala J, Heyes C, Klimont Z, Schöpp W (1999) The RAINS model: a tool for assessing regional emission control strategies in Europe. Pollut Atmos 4:41–63
[2] Ansuategi A, Escapa M (2002) Economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Ecolo Econ 40(1):23–37
[3] Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C (1999) Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. Technical Report 99-51, Resources for the Future, USA · Zbl 1047.91559
[4] Chay KY, Greenstone M (2003) The impact of air pollution on infant mortality: Evidence from geographic variation in pollution shocks induced by a recession. Q J Econ 118(3):1121–1167 · Zbl 1072.91611
[5] Diamond PA (1965) National debt in a neoclassical growth model. Am Econ Rev 55(5):1126–1150
[6] Ekins P (1996) How large a carbon tax is justified by the secondary benefits of CO2 abatement. Resour Energy Econ 18(2):161–187
[7] Ekins P, Speck S (1999) Competitiveness and exemptions from environmental taxes in Europe. Environ Resour Econ 13(4):369–396
[8] Eyckmans J, Bertrand C (2000) Integrated assessment of carbon and sulphur emissions, simulations with the CLIMNEG model. ETE Working Paper 2000-08, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
[9] Gerlagh R, Keyzer MA (2001) Sustainability and the intergenerational distribution of natural resource entitlements. J Public Econ 79(2):315–341
[10] Gerlagh R, van der Zwaan B (2001) The effects of ageing and an environmental trust fund in an overlapping generations model on carbon emission reductions. Ecol Econ 36:311–326
[11] Gerlagh R, van der Zwaan B (2003) Gross world product and consumption in a global warming model with endogenous technical change. Resour Energy Econ 25:35–57
[12] Holland M, Berry J, Forster D (1999) Externe, 1999: externalities of energy, vol 7: methodology 1998 Update. Technical report, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
[13] Howarth RB (1998) An overlapping generations model of climate-economy interactions. Scand J Econ 100(3):575–591 · Zbl 0911.90107
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[15] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001a) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[16] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001b) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
[17] Kavuncu YO, Knabb SD (2005) Stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions: Assessing the intergenerational costs and benefits of the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Econ 27(3):369–386
[18] Kverndokk S, Rosendahl K (2000) CO2 mitigation costs and ancillary benefits in the Nordic Countries the UK and Ireland: a survey. Technical Report Memorandum 34/2000, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo
[19] Leach A (2006) The welfare implications of climate change policy. Mimeo, November 2006. Revised version available at http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/aleach
[20] Manne AS, Mendelsohn R, Richels R (1995) MERGE: a model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy 23(1):17–34
[21] Newbery DM (2005) Why tax energy? Towards a more rational policy. Energy J 26(3):1–39
[22] Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world. MIT Press, Cambridge
[23] Ono T, Maeda Y (2001) Is aging harmful to the environment?. Environ Resour Econ 20(2):113–127
[24] Overpeck J, Otto-Bliesner B, Miller G, Muhs D, Alley R, Kiehl J (2006) Paleoclimatic evidence for future ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. Science 311(5768):1747–1750
[25] Rignot E, Kanagaratnam P (2006) Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science 311(5763):986–990
[26] Schwartz SE (1996) The whitehouse effect–shortwave radiative forcing anthropogenic aerosols: An overview. J Aerosol Sci 27(3):359–382
[27] Shah J, Nagpal T, Johnson T, Amann M, Carmichael G, Foell W, Green C, Hettelingh JP, Hordijk L, Li J, Peng C, Pu Y, Ramankutty R, Streets D (2000) Integrated analysis for acid rain in Asia: Policy implications and results of the RAINS-Asia model. Ann Rev Energy Environ 25(5768):339–376
[28] Tol R (2002) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change, part II. Dynamic estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21(2):135–160
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.