Author
Abstract
Les récentes déconvenues des politiques de régulation climatique soulignent l’importance de l’initiative citoyenne. L’achat et la rétention de permis d’émission de CO2 (ARPEC) se présente comme une alternative crédible à la compensation carbone pour réduire volontairement les émissions. Nous analysons l’intérêt des individus pour l’ARPEC dans le cadre d’une enquête d’évaluation contingente (double bounded dichotomous choice) réalisée par Internet sur un échantillon représentatif de 1 730 chefs de famille français. L’enquête est enrichie des apports de la Psychologie sociale, notamment afin de minimiser les biais de déclaration et d’améliorer l’estimation des préférences individuelles. Associée à une démarche de type expérimental, cette approche conduit à des modèles explicatifs relativement efficaces et accroît considérablement la validité de nos résultats. Le prix moyen consenti par permis est de 11,4€, avec un maximum de 17,3€. Le potentiel d’achat est de 27€ par ménage français, conduisant au retrait théorique de 120 millions de permis en 2009 (au prix spot moyen). Le scénario avec prélèvement obligatoire, du type taxe carbone, recueille la contribution volontaire la plus faible (dilemme social et conduites stratégiques). L’option de revente des permis apparaît comme la plus incitative, et la gestion privée du service d’ARPEC prime légèrement sur la gestion publique. Parmi les recommandations de politique économique, nous discutons la légitimité d’un service européen facilitant l’ARPEC des ménages. Ce service contribuerait à rapprocher le quota global de l’optimum écologique, allégeant ainsi les critiques relatives à la sur-allocation gratuite des quotas ETS. L’étude souligne aussi l’intérêt de développer des méthodes fiables afin de mesurer le potentiel de réduction volontaire des émissions de CO2 chez les particuliers, notamment pour guider les actions de stabilisation climatique. **************************************** Recent disappointments over policies in climate mitigation draw attention to the importance of individual commitments. Purchasing and withdrawing carbon allowances (PUWICAL) from EU-ETS appears to be a credible alternative to carbon offsetting for the voluntary reduction of carbon emissions. In this article we analyze the demand for PUWICAL among 1,730 French householders through a web-based contingent valuation survey. The investigation is enriched by reference to the social psychology, in order both to minimise statement biases and to improve the appraisal of individual preferences. This approach yields relatively accurate econometric models and increases considerably the robustness of our willingness-to-pay estimations (double-bounded dichotomous choice). The average price demanded for each allowance is 11.4€, with a maximum level of 17.3€. The purchase potential per household is 27€, leading to the theoretical withdrawal of 120 million allowances in 2009 (at the average spot price). The voluntary contribution is at its lowest when a carbon tax is already imposed, due in part to social dilemma and strategic behaviour, and is highest when a reselling option is proposed. Private management of PUWICAL is seen as slightly preferable to public management. Among possible policy guidelines, we discuss the legitimacy of a European service facilitating individual PUWICAL. Such a service would enable the global quota to approach the ecological optimum and thus reduce criticism with respect to gratuitous over-allocation of EU-ETS’ quotas. Our study also highlights the importance of developing reliable methods able to assess individuals’ potential reduction of carbon emission, in order notably to guide climate control policies.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
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:mop:credwp:10.07.87. 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: Olivier ROUSSE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crmplfr.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.