1 / 15

Can Climate Change Policies be Fair?

This article examines the fairness of climate change policies by analyzing the regressivity challenge, redistributive policies, and limitations of static analysis. The study also addresses the issue of infrequency of purchase data and its implications for policy analysis.

wickerj
Download Presentation

Can Climate Change Policies be Fair?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can Climate Change Policies be Fair? Nicholas Bardsley: University of Reading and Walker Institute Milena Büchs & Sylke Schnepf: University of Southampton

  2. Can Climate Change Policies be Fair? Outline: - regressivity challenge - effects of redistributive CC policy by area - implications of data problem for policy analysis - limitations of static analysis, and of redistribution

  3. Regressivity of Emissions Taxes Assumptions: Prices increase proportionally to CO2 emissions for each good / service; Behaviour unchanged EFS/LCF + REAP + other sources 2006-2009

  4. Is Transport Different? Cf. Dresner & Ekins (2004) CO2 taxes on motor fuels not progressive Est .48% of households in lowest income decile had a vehicle by 2009 Cf 33% in 1990s EFS/LCF + REAP + other sources 2006-2009

  5. “Rebate” Options • Reduced fossil fuel use implies an increased scarcity rent - an unearned income transfer • To avoid regressivity and fuel poverty, the rent can be: • predistributed (tradable permits) OR • redistributed (tax rebates) • Examples: • Cap and Share, Cap and Dividend (Douthwaite, Barnes) • Personal Carbon Trading (Flemming) • Tax and Dividend (Hansen)

  6. “Rebate” Schemes by Emissions Area • Assuming implementation issues are soluble (Sorrell 2007, AEA 2008) … Annual rebates of mean per adult revenue to each adult in a HH Assumptions: No behaviour change Border tarrifs or general adoption EFS/LCF + REAP + other sources 2006-2009

  7. Non-EUETS= transport + indirect - aviation Annual rebates of mean per adult revenue to each adult in a HH Assumptions: No behaviour change Border tarrifs or general adoption Interim conclusion: fair climate change policy is possible

  8. Households below the Poverty Line • Motor Fuels £100/tCO2 Tax Rebated Households with <60% of Median Income 17% lose 83% gain

  9. Low-income, rural motorists £100/t CO2 Tax motor fuels Mean CO2 tax = 3% of income Mean net burden = 0.3% of income £100/t CO2 Tax motor fuels + rebate Mean for non-EUETS emissions scheme = -1.2% of income

  10. Data Problem: Range Extension from Infrequency of Purchase • National Travel Survey contains: • 1 week fuel purchase diary (litres and £) • Interview mileage question (last year’s mileage) • It is therefore potentially useful for exploring infrequency of purchase issues • In a world in which low income drivers all had below average mileage, range extension would: • exaggerate numbers of low-income losers, from rebated CO2 tax • understate numbers of low-income losers, from rebated CO2 tax ?

  11. NTS Diary vs Interview: Motor Fuels Policy 2002-2008 Higher income hhs more likely to have a vehicle; range extension concentrates there

  12. LCF vs NTS: Motor Fuels Policy 2006-2008 Differences significant at 1% level Note: typical effects of an aviation policy might also be affected for this reason with LCF data: we don't observe the rate of flying with a 1-year window.

  13. Limitations of "Static Microsimulation" • Assumes behaviour does not change • But the point of CC Mitigation Policy is changed behaviour • "SM yields estimates of “initial effects” of policies only" • Dynamic inferences, therefore, are not licensed • What else is there ..? • Economists’ (computable) ‘general equilibrium’ models • Misleading assumptions, poor track record, resource requirements • hybrid economics / engineering models e.g. E3ME • assumption-heavy, significant resource requirements …

  14. “Trophic Methods” in Ecological Economics Liebig’s “Law of the Minimum” industrial / agricultural; degrowth / growth; sharing / individualist; money system Source: Mario Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi: “The Biofuel Delusion” (2009)

  15. Conclusions • Progressive Climate Change policy is possible • Infrequency of purchase may obscure progressivity of rebate schemes, in survey data • But redistributive measures cannot offset reduced fossil energy throughput. Effects of that reduction may not be explorable at high resolution • Climate change social policy agenda needs to join with debate over far-reaching transformation (e.g. ‘degrowth’ movement) • That is a political debate over how to live & organise society across the board

More Related