IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econpa/v33y2014i3p233-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon Price versus Subsidies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Author

Listed:
  • John Freebairn

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="ecpa12082-abs-0001"> This paper describes the operation of a price and a subsidy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and it compares and contrasts efficiency, redistribution and transactions costs of the two options. An initial comparison assumes comprehensive bases and negligible transaction costs. Then, actual examples for Australia are assessed, namely the carbon tax of 2012–2014 and the proposed Direct Action plan under consideration for 2015. It is argued that the price intervention option will be more cost effective per unit of GHG reduction, that it will be simpler and easier to operate, and that as part of a budget package it can provide at least as good a net distribution outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • John Freebairn, 2014. "Carbon Price versus Subsidies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 33(3), pages 233-242, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econpa:v:33:y:2014:i:3:p:233-242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecpa.2014.33.issue-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    2. Tracey Dodd & Tim Nelson, 2019. "Trials and tribulations of market responses to climate change: Insight through the transformation of the Australian electricity market," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 614-631, November.
    3. Simshauser, Paul, 2018. "Price discrimination and the modes of failure in deregulated retail electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 54-70.
    4. Paul Simshauser & Joel Gilmore, 2020. "Is the NEM broken? Policy discontinuity and the 2017-2020 investment megacycle," Working Papers EPRG2014, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    5. Nong, Duy & Siriwardana, Mahinda, 2017. "Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund in an international context," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 123-134.
    6. Gohdes, Nicholas & Simshauser, Paul & Wilson, Clevo, 2023. "Renewable investments, hybridised markets and the energy crisis: Optimising the CfD-merchant revenue mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Tim Nelson & Tahlia Nolan & Joel Gilmore, 2022. "What’s next for the Renewable Energy Target – resolving Australia’s integration of energy and climate change policy?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 136-163, January.
    8. Simshauser, Paul, 2021. "Renewable Energy Zones in Australia's National Electricity Market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Simshauser, Paul, 2019. "Missing money, missing policy and Resource Adequacy in Australia's National Electricity Market," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Meng, Xianming & Siriwardana, Mahinda & McNeill, Judith, 2015. "Will the direct action plan work?," Conference papers 332602, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Simshauser, Paul, 2018. "Garbage can theory and Australia's National Electricity Market: Decarbonisation in a hostile policy environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 697-713.
    12. Tim Nelson & Stephanie Bashir & Eleanor McCracken-Hewson & Michael Pierce, 2017. "The Changing Nature of the Australian Electricity Industry," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 36(2), pages 104-120, June.
    13. Gohdes, N.Nicholas & Simshauser,P. & Wilson, C., 2023. "Renewable investments in hybridised energy markets: optimising the CfD-merchant revenue mix," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2334, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Tran, Trang, 2015. "The Distributional and Welfare Effects of the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme," Conference papers 332652, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Gohdes, Nicholas & Simshauser, Paul & Wilson, Clevo, 2022. "Renewable entry costs, project finance and the role of revenue quality in Australia's National Electricity Market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    16. Nolan, Tahlia, 2024. "Is pivoting offshore the right policy for achieving decarbonisation in the state of Victoria, Australia's electricity sector?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. McNeill, Judith, 2015. "A review of the economic modelling on the impacts of the Australian carbon tax," Conference papers 332598, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Simshauser, P., 2021. "Renewable Energy Zones in Australia’s National Electricity Market," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2119, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Simshauser, Paul & Gilmore, Joel, 2022. "Climate change policy discontinuity & Australia's 2016-2021 renewable investment supercycle," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. McFadzean-Lodge, Liam, 2023. "Market-Based Approaches to Achieve Australia’s Emissions Reduction Targets," Warwick-Monash Economics Student Papers 60, Warwick Monash Economics Student Papers.
    21. Nelson, Tim & Pascoe, Owen & Calais, Prabpreet & Mitchell, Lily & McNeill, Judith, 2019. "Efficient integration of climate and energy policy in Australia’s National Electricity Market," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 178-193.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econpa:v:33:y:2014:i:3:p:233-242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.