Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes the long-term investment decisions of firms that are regulated by an emissions tax and that perceive a degree of market power in their respective output markets. Firms invest in abatement equipment that is fixed over the medium term (e.g., buying a new generator). This paper focuses on environmental regulation with and without commitment. In the commitment case, the government announces a long-run tax on emissions, and firms decide upon their investment levels. In the no-commitment case, the regulator announces a tax level and is free to modify it once firms have invested. This paper considers differentiated product goods and determines whether no-commitment regulation leads to more lenient or more stringent regulation than regulation with commitment. ; November 2015

The present paper addresses two policy objectives that the environmental regulator aims to accomplish: to implement a market for permits and make regulation acceptable for businesses. Profit-neutral permit allocations are defined as the number of permits that the regulator should give for free so that profits after regulation (i.e. profits that the firm realizes in the market for products plus the value of the allowances granted for free) are equal to profits before regulation. The paper demonstrates that a low number of free allowances is sufficient to meet these two goals. Moreover, even when the reduction is high, the regulator can fully offset losses if the concerned sectors are not in a monopoly context. The suggested model is developed by assuming that firms compete "à la Cournot", use polluting technologies and the demand function is iso-elastic. It is then illustrated by the first two phases of the EU Emissions Trading System.

Cet article étudie dans le cadre d'un modèle d'équilibre partiel à deux pays, le Nord et le Sud, les effets du changement de localisation des entreprises dans un contexte de concurrence internationale et imparfaite. Nous considérons deux technologies de production, une technologie relativement propre et une technologie relativement sale, et nous déterminons comment le type de technologie utilisée par les entreprises qui délocalisent leurs activités de production affecte les impacts des délocalisations sur le bien-être social. Nous supposons qu'il existe une entreprise relativement sale immobile située dans le Sud et deux entreprises mobiles situées dans le Nord : une entreprise relativement propre et une entreprise relativement sale. Cet article démontre que la délocalisation d'une entreprise relativement sale par rapport à celle d'une entreprise relativement propre est plus néfaste pour l'environnement, meilleure pour les consommateurs dans le Nord et meilleure pour les profits réalisés par les entreprises dans le Nord. Classification JEL : L13, Q53, Q58.

AbstractThe deployment of cleaner production technologies is supposed to be crucial to mitigate the effect of climate change. The diffusion of technology from developed to developing countries can be done through different channels. It can be a business decision such as firms' relocation, opening of a subsidiary or the adoption of technology by southern firms, or it may be decided at the government level. This paper investigates, in a two-country model (North and South), the relationship between the diffusion of mitigation technologies, firms' relocation and the environment. We assume that both countries implement a carbon tax and there are two kinds of production technology used: a relatively clean technology and a dirty one. This paper theoretically shows that the technology diffusion by technology adoption, public transfer or subsidiary creation induces a decrease in relocation, while technology diffusion via purchasing dirty southern firms may increase the number of relocated firms. The paper also demonstrates that technology diffusion may have perverse effects in the long run. Indeed, total emissions may increase with technology diffusion since southern firms become more competitive.

The deployment of cleaner production technologies is crucial to mit-igate the effect of climate change. The diffusion of technology from developed todeveloping countries can be done through different channels. It can be a businessdecision such as firms' relocation, creation of a subsidiary or the adoption of tech-nology by southern firms, or it may be decided at government level. This paperinvestigates in a two-country model (North and South) the relationship betweenthe firms' relocation and diffusion of mitigation technologies. We assume that bothcountries implement a carbon tax and there are two kinds of production technologyused: a relatively clean technology and a dirty one. This paper theoretically showsthat the diffusion technology by technology adoption, public transfer or subsidiarycreation induces a decrease in relocation, while technology diffusion via purchasingdirty southern firms may increase the number of relocated firms. The paper alsodemonstrates that technology diffusion may have perverse effects in the long run.Indeed, total emissions may increase with technology diffusion since southern firmsare more competitive.

The need to transfer climate mitigation technologies towards the developing world has been acknowledged since the beginning of climate negotiations. Little progress has however been made as shown by Article 10 of the Paris Agreement. One reason is that these technologies could become vital assets to compete on global markets. This paper presents a partial equilibrium model with two regions, the North and the South, and imperfect competition in the international polluting goods market to analyze the North's incentives to accept technology transfer. Results crucially depend on the existence of environmental cooperation. When both northern and southern governments set emission quotas non-cooperatively, inducing fewer global emissions is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the North to accept the transfer. In contrast, when governments set quotas cooperatively, the North never accepts the transfer because it only leads to a partial relocation of pollutant goods production to the South. We derive the implications for the global regulation of climate change.

The need to transfer climate mitigation technologies towards the developing world has been acknowledged since the beginning of climate negotiations. Little progress has however been made as shown by Article 10 of the Paris Agreement. One reason is that these technologies could become vital assets to compete on global markets. This paper presents a partial equilibrium model with two regions, the North and the South, and imperfect competition in the international polluting goods market to analyze the North's incentives to accept technology transfer. Results crucially depend on the existence of environmental cooperation. When both northern and southern governments set emission quotas non-cooperatively, inducing fewer global emissions is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the North to accept the transfer. In contrast, when governments set quotas cooperatively, the North never accepts the transfer because it only leads to a partial relocation of pollutant goods production to the South. We derive the implications for the global regulation of climate change.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.

International audience ; In Europe, energy efficiency obligations are imposed on energy retailers competing in liberalized energy markets. They comply by subsidizing energy efficiency investments made by energy end-users within or outside their customer base. We develop a model describing how competition in the energy market affects compliance strategies. We find that, instead of selecting the most cost-effective investments options, firms may either target their most elastic customers, which enables them to increase their retail price, or their competitor's customers, which protects their sales. Allowing firms to trade obligations can restore cost-effectiveness, but reduces consumer surplus. Overall, the degree of flexibility that should be incorporated into such programs crucially depends on the degree of heterogeneity across investment costs and the relative weights governments assign to cost-effectiveness and consumer surplus.