Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:42:18.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

GROWTH AND IRREVERSIBLE POLLUTION: ARE EMISSION PERMITS A MEANS OF AVOIDING ENVIRONMENTAL AND POVERTY TRAPS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2011

Fabien Prieur*
Affiliation:
LAMETA, Université Montpellier 1 and INRA
Alain Jean-Marie
Affiliation:
INRIA and LIRMM
Mabel Tidball
Affiliation:
LAMETA and INRA
*
Address correspondence to: Fabien Prieur, LAMETA-INRA, 2 Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier, France; e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

We consider an OLG model with emissions arising from production and potentially irreversible pollution. Pollution control consists of the assignment of permits to firms; private agents also can abate pollution. In this setting, we prove that multiple equilibria exist. Due to the possible irreversibility of pollution, the economy can be dragged into both environmental and poverty traps. First, we show that choosing an emission quota at the lowest level beyond a critical threshold is a means to avoid these two types of traps. We also prove that when the agents do not engage in maintenance, a reduction of the quota leads to a reduction in pollution but also to slower capital accumulation. In contrast, when agents do engage in maintenance, a reduction of the quota provides a double dividend.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K.J. and Fisher, A. (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 88, 312319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A. and de Mooij, R. (1997) Environmental tax reform and endogenous growth. Journal of Public Economics 63, 207237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A. and Smulders, S. (1995) Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model. Journal of Public Economics 57, 369391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A. and Smulders, S. (1996) Transitional impacts of environmental policy in an endogenous growth model. International Economic Review 37 (4), 861893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Mäler, K.-G. (2003) The economics of non-convex ecosystems: Introduction. Environmental and Resource Economics 26, 499525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Technical summary: “Climate Change 2007: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.Google Scholar
John, A. and Pecchenino, R. (1994) An overlapping generations model of growth and the environment. Economic Journal 104, 13931410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A., Pecchenino, R., Schimmelpfennig, D., and Schreft, S. (1995) Short-lived agents and long-lived environment. Journal of Public Economics 58, 127141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouvet, P.-A., Michel, P., and Rotillon, G. (2005) Optimal growth with pollution: How to use pollution permits? Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 29, 15971609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, P. and Rotillon, G. (1995) Disutility of pollution and endogenous growth. Environmental and Resource Economics 6, 279300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. (2002) Effects of emission permits on growth and the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 21, 7587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. (2003) Environmental tax policy in a model of growth cycles. Economic Theory 22, 141168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieur, F. (2009) The environmental Kuznets curve in a world of irreversibility. Economic Theory 40 (1), 5790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahvonen, O. and Withagen, C. (1996) Optimality of irreversible pollution accumulation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20, 17751795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar