Indexed Regulation

Citations

Cited by:

1. Hsiao-chi Chen & Shi-miin Liu, 2018. "Environmental efficiency of price and quantity policies," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1514-1522.
2. Philippe Quirion, 2022. "Output-based allocation and output-based rebates: a survey," Chapters, in: Handbook on Trade Policy and Climate Change, chapter 7, pages 94-107, Edward Elgar Publishing.
   • Philippe Quirion, 2021. "Output-Based Allocation and Output-Based Rebates: A survey," Policy Papers 2021.01, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
   • Philippe Quirion, 2021. "Output-Based Allocation and Output-Based Rebates: A survey," Working Papers 2021.03, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
   • Philippe Quirion, 2022. "Output-based allocation and output-based rebates: a survey," Post-Print hal-03921050, HAL.
3. Garth Heutel, 2012. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(2), pages 244-264, April.
   • Garth Heutel, 2011. "Online Appendix to "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks"," Online Appendices 10-62, Review of Economic Dynamics.
4. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(3), pages 179-210, July.
   • Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 179-210.
   • Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-20, Resources for the Future.
5. Garth Heutel, 2012. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(2), pages 244-264, April.
   • Heutel, Garth, 2011. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-8, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
6. Webster, Mort & Sue Wing, Ian & Jakobovits, Lisa, 2010. "Second-best instruments for near-term climate policy: Intensity targets vs. the safety valve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 250-259, May.
7. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2017. "GHG Emissions Control and Monetary Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 823-851, August.
8. Holland, Stephen P., 2012. "Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 375-387.
9. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
10. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    • Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael R., 2009. "Emissions Targets and the Real Business Cycle: Intensity Targets versus Caps or Taxes," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-47, Resources for the Future.
    • Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael R., 2011. "Emissions Targets and the Real Business Cycle: Intensity Targets versus Caps or Taxes," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-47-rev, Resources for the Future.
11. Don Fullerton & Garth Heutel, 2010. "The General Equilibrium Incidence of Environmental Mandates," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 64-89, August.
    • Don Fullerton & Garth Heutel, 2007. "The General Equilibrium Incidence of Environmental Mandates," NBER Working Papers 13645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
12. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    • Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio di Dio, 2013. "Environmental Policy and Macroeconomic Dynamics in a New Keynesian Model," CEIS Research Paper 286, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 30 Sep 2013.
13. Stephen P. Holland, 2009. "Taxes and Trading versus Intensity Standards: Second-Best Environmental Policies with Incomplete Regulation (Leakage) or Market Power," NBER Working Papers 15262, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
14. Hossa Almutairi & Samir Elhedhli, 2014. "Carbon tax based on the emission factor: a bilevel programming approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 795-815, April.
15. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
16. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Kahn, Danny, 2010. "A symmetric safety valve," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 4921-4932, September.
    • Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Kahn, Danny, 2009. "A Symmetric Safety Valve," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-06, Resources for the Future.
17. Frédéric Branger & Philippe Quirion, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Working Papers 2014.09, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    • Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 187277, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    • Frédéric Branger & Philippe Quirion, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Working Papers 2014.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
18. Pezzey, John C.V. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Research Reports 95049, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    • Jack Pezzey & Frank Jotzo, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1068, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
19. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Indexed regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 221-233, November.
    • Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2006. "Indexed Regulation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-32, Resources for the Future.
    • Richard G. Newell & William A. Pizer, 2008. "Indexed Regulation," NBER Working Papers 13991, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
20. Mohajan, Haradhan, 2012. "Certainty and Uncertainty in Cap and Trade System or in Carbon Tax for Green Accounting to Decrease Greenhouse gas Emissions," MPRA Paper 50669, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Dec 2012.
21. Shinkuma, Takayoshi & Sugeta, Hajime, 2016. "Tax versus emissions trading scheme in the long run," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 12-24.
22. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer & Keigo Akimoto, 2017. "Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 501-515, May.
    • William Pizer & Joseph Aldy & Keigo Akimoto, 2015. "Comparing Emissions Mitigation Efforts across Countries," Working Papers id:7843, eSocialSciences.
23. Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A., 2014. "Comparability of Effort in International Climate Policy Architecture," Working Paper Series rwp14-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
24. Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo, 2015. "A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders w," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-32, Resources for the Future.
25. Aldy, Joseph Edgar & Pizer, William, 2016. "Alternative Metrics for Comparing Domestic Climate Change Mitigation Efforts and the Emerging International Climate Policy Architecture," Scholarly Articles 22808338, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
26. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    • Zhao, Jinhua, 2018. "Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," ADBI Working Papers 813, Asian Development Bank Institute.
27. Munnings, Clayton & Morgenstern, Richard & Wang, Zhongmin & Liu, Xu, 2014. "Assessing the Design of Three Pilot Programs for Carbon Trading in China," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-36, Resources for the Future.
28. Wajahat Ali & Azrai Abdullah & Muhammad Azam, 2016. "The Dynamic Linkage between Technological Innovation and carbon dioxide emissions in Malaysia: An Autoregressive Distributed Lagged Bound Approach," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 6(3), pages 389-400.
29. Prest, Brian C., 2020. "Supply-Side Reforms to Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands: Modeling the Implications for Climate Emissions, Revenues, and Production Shifts," RFF Working Paper Series 20-16, Resources for the Future.
30. Elisa Lanzi & Ian Sue Wing, 2013. "Capital Malleability, Emission Leakage and the Cost of Partial Climate Policies: General Equilibrium Analysis of the European Union Emission Trading System," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 257-289, June.