February 28, 2007
GCRIO Program Overview
Our extensive collection of documents.
Archives of the
Global Climate Change Digest
A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999
FROM VOLUME 5, NUMBER 5, MAY 1992
EMISSION REDUCTION ANALYSES
(See also Reports/OECD Studies, this GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DIGEST issue--May
Economic Effects of Using Carbon Taxes to Reduce Carbon Dioxide
Emissions in Major OECD Countries, DRI/McGraw Hill (Lexington, Mass.), 154
pp., 1992. NTIS: PB92-127562; $26.
Sponsored by the U.S. Commerce Department, this study estimated that a
revenue-neutral tax on fossil fuels intended to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by the
year 2000 would lower output among OECD nations by one to over three percent.
Taxes required per ton of carbon in fuels range from $490 (Sweden) to $2430
(Japan), with the U.S. at $720. An article in Inside EPA (p. 20, Mar.
20) discusses criticisms of the analysis because it overestimates the necessary
taxes by not allowing for economic elasticity. Further work is being done to
remedy this problem.
Towards More Cost-Efficient Environmental Policies in the 1990s:
Principles and Proposals for Better Pricing of the Environment, Norwegian
Environmental Tax Committee, 1992. A 59-page summary is available in English;
full report in Norwegian. Contact Thorvald Moe, Chief Economic Adviser,
Norwegian Ministry of Finance, POB 8008 Dep., Oslo 1, Norway.
Written by a committee appointed by the Norwegian government, this report
has been viewed as a challenge to the Norwegian commitment to stabilize CO2
emissions by the year 2000, according to an extensive article in Energy,
Econ. & Clim. Change (pp. 4-7, Mar. 1992). The main conclusion, which
has applications to other countries as well, is that environmental taxes are
preferable to regulatory approaches, and they should be fiscally neutral so that
proceeds offset other taxes.
An Alternative Energy Future, 180 pp., 1992, $25. Order from
Amer. Gas Assoc. (attn: Donna Mercado), 1515 Wilson Blvd., Arlington VA 22209
(See News Notes, this GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DIGEST issue--May 1992.)
Sponsored by the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Gas Association and the
Solar Energy Industries Association, with peer review by university, federal
agency and other groups. The analysis differs from conventional energy forecasts
by assuming aggressive market penetration for more efficient technologies,
incorporating the most recent regulations and standards of appliance efficiency
and conservation measures, and assuming removal of certain regulatory market
barriers. It forecasts stabilization of total energy consumption over the next
20 years, with a 12% reduction in CO2 emissions, lower consumer energy bills, an
improved balance of trade, and increased employment in domestic energy
industries, all without any major new federal policy initiatives.
Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policies on the Electric
Utility Industry: Costs, Impacts and Opportunities, ICF Resour. Inc., 1992.
Request (no charge) from Mary Kenkel, Media Relations, Edison Elec. Inst., 701
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20004 (202-508-5000).
Four possible emission control scenarios from 1990 through 2015 were
analyzed for the Institute by ICF Resources, Inc. (Washington), one including a
carbon tax of $110 per metric ton phased in by 2005. Costs to the electric
utility industry and its customers would be significant under any of the
scenarios, especially with carbon taxes, and there would be substantial impacts
on other sectors of the economy. Major changes in government policies that would
overcome institutional and market barriers would lower the costs. Any policy
response should not be limited to a single industry.
A Climate for Investment: How the US Can Stabilize CO2 Emissions
through Profitable Measures the White House Already Supports, D. Lashof, D.
Doniger, 10 pp., Mar. 1992. Contact Natural Resour. Defense Council, 1350 York
Ave. NW, Washington DC 20005 (202-783-7800).
Concludes that policies and programs already initiated by the U.S.
government will enable the country to stabilize CO2 emissions by the year 2000
at a profit, and that there is no reason for the U.S. to oppose proposed
Least Cost Climatic Stabilization (E91-33), 68 pp., $20. Rocky
Mountain Inst., 1739 Snowmass Creek Rd., Snowmass CO 81654. A revised version of
paper E91-8 (GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DIGEST, Reports/General Interest,
Pollution Charges as a Source of Public Revenues (QE92-05), W.E.
Oates, 1992, $5. Publications, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW,
Washington DC 20036 (202-328-5086).
While pollution charges can provide a valuable source of general revenue, a
single tax level will generally not be optimum for achieving both environmental
and fiscal goals. Placing the responsibility for levying and administering
pollution taxes with an environmental (rather than a tax) authority may be best.
Guide to Publishers
Index of Abbreviations