Home  |  Top News  |  Most Popular  |  Video  |  Multimedia  |  News Feeds  |  Feedback
  Medicine  |  Nature & Earth  |  Biology  |  Technology & Engineering  |  Space & Planetary  |  Psychology  |  Physics & Chemistry  |  Economics  |  Archaeology
Top > Economics, Sociology > Buy Coal? New Analysis Shows… >

Buy Coal? New Analysis Shows Purchasing Fossil Fuel Deposits Best Way to Fight Climate Change

Published: April 11, 2012.
Released by University of Chicago Press Journals  

Environmental policy has historically been driven by a demand-side mindset – attempting to limit consumption of precious fossil fuels through pollution permits, taxation, and multi-national climate change treaties. However, new research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University suggests that actually buying coal, oil and other dirty fossil fuel deposits still in the ground could be a far better way to fight climate change.

The new study, "Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy," suggests that the single best policy for a multi-national climate coalition is to purchase the extraction rights of dirty fossil fuels in non-participating countries (also called "third countries"), and then conserve rather than exploit the deposits. According to the study's author, Bard Harstad, this would be a radical departure from the traditional view that focuses on reducing the demand for fuel.

"One of the biggest challenges for multi-national climate agreements is the role of non-participating countries. If a climate coalition reduces demand for fossil fuel, the world price of oil goes down and non-participating countries find it profitable to consume and pollute more. Similarly, if the coalition seeks to reduce the supply or extraction of fossil fuels, the world price increases and these countries find it optimal to supply more," said Harstad, associate professor of managerial economics & decision sciences and Max McGraw Chair in Management & Environment at the Kellogg School of Management. "Thus, both on the demand-side and the supply-side the result is carbon leakage, which is an increase in pollution abroad relative to the emission-reduction at home. To limit carbon leakage, the coalition may set up tariffs or other border measures, but this will distort trade."

"In my analysis, I show that by letting coalition countries buy extraction rights in third countries – and preserve rather than exploit the fuel deposits – climate coalitions can circumvent the traditional problems of a demand-side policy," he said.

Harstad explained further that the most intuitive benefit from this policy is that emission is reduced if one buys and conserves deposits. Furthermore, the coalition finds it cheapest to buy the marginal deposits (ie, deposits that are not very profitable to exploit, but still quite polluting when consumed). After selling its marginal deposits, a non-participating country's level of supply will be less sensitive to changes in the world fuel price. Consequently, there is no longer carbon leakage on the supply-side, and the coalition can limit its own supply without fearing that the non-participants will increase theirs.

"This does the trick," Harstad noted. After purchasing marginal extraction rights, the coalition implements its ideal policy simply by reducing its supply, not its demand. Fossil fuel prices are then equalized across countries. Also, the resulting fossil fuel price seems high enough to motivate even non-participating countries to invest effectively in new technologies, such as renewable energy sources. For these reasons, the policy is socially optimal in the analysis, even if some countries do not participate.

Most importantly, Harstad said, "The analysis shows that progress on international climate policy is best achieved by simply utilizing the existing market for extraction rights."

Multi-national companies are already trading extraction rights. "Climate coalitions should, as well," he concluded.

The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Political Economy.






The above story is based on materials provided by University of Chicago Press Journals.

Translate this page: Chinese French German Italian Japanese Korean Portuguese Russian Spanish


comments powered by Disqus


Related »

People 
2/13/12 
Ethanol Mandate Not the Best Option
Many people are willing to pay a premium for ethanol, but not enough to justify the government mandate for …
Vehicles 
3/30/10 
Reducing Fuel Consumption in Medium- And Heavy-duty Vehicles
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles -- such as tractor-trailers, transit buses, and work trucks -- consume about 26 percent of …
Years 
9/9/10 
Emission Reductions Slowed Down by Heavier And More Powerful Cars
The potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars is not being fully realized. The average Swedish car buyer …
Impacts 
3/1/11 
Clean Fuel Worsens Climate Impacts for Some Vehicle Engines: UBC Study
A pioneering program by one of the world's largest cities to switch its vehicle fleet to clean fuel has …
Travel 
7/18/14 
Economic Development Not the Only Influence on Personal Car Use, Study Finds
Although countries with high levels of economic development generally have more personal automobile travel than less-affluent nations, income is …
Fuel 
8/17/11 
Concerns About Efforts to Foster the Biofuel Boom
Despite growing evidence that biofuels may not be the cure-all once envisioned, many countries are still rushing headlong with …
Lighting 
8/16/10 
Car Lighting Makeover Impacts Feel of Safety And Style
London (August 16, 2010) - Gone are the days of basic, glaring lights inside cars to help us find …
More » 
 
© Newsline Group  |  About  |  Privacy Policy  |  Feedback  |  Mobile