International Dimensions of Regulation

Developing countries need special attention

Global pollutants particularly tough to control

Green Accounting

Double Dividend

Motivation

Group Project: Treaty proposed to free up trade between US and Guatemala. What restrictions should we put in place to avoid environmental degradation in Guatemala?

Income effect

Why are oil refineries in poor areas? Why do poor countries have weak

environmental regulations? Can we expect environmental

regulations to weaken or tighten over time in the US or any country?

[Similar questions as when we considered environmental justice.]

Luxury, Normal and Inferior Goods

Income

Amount of Env. Qual.Demanded(at fixedPrice)

Inferior Good

Luxury Good(Elast > 1)

Normal Good(Elast <1)

Larry Summers Memo

What was Summers suggesting? What are the arguments in support of

his position? What are the arguments against his

position?

GATT and the Environment

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) says: You can place border restrictions on the quality of a product (ie, no

chunks of Flipper in the can of tuna) You cannot place restrictions on how the product was produced (you

cannot prohibit use of hormones in raising beef if no hormones can be detected in the imported beef)

Allows environmental restrictions (eg, protecting dolphins) if the restriction allows country to choose methods that provide equal levels of environmental protection – ie, not technology standards

What are the reasons for these rules? Do they work in providing environmental protection? Why did US lose the Venezuelan Refinery Case (Sanger article)?

Dynamics of Environmental Protection

Environmental Quality

Price

Shifts with increases in income.

Demand

Supply

Environmental Kuznet’s Curve

Income

SulfurEmissions

Early phases of economicgrowth tend to increase pollution

As income rises, cleanenvironment is valued more, emissions decline

But very difficult to estimatedue to lack of time series

Reasons for failure of EKC

Corruption – bribe officials to locate hazardous waste sites

Nondemocratic regimes – preferences of population not represented in environmental regulations

Poorly educated population Not all pollutants have same shape

EKC

Back to Group Project

What are some answers to our original group project problem? Do we need to put into place safeguards so

that Guatemala doesn’t become dumping ground due to corrupt officials?

Should we worry about differences in regs between US and Guatemala, at least in the short-run?

Will increases in income in Guatemala tend to increase env quality?

Transboundary Environmental Problems

Who fixes environmental problems that cross national borders?Stratospheric ozone depletionGlobal Warming/climate changeGlobal species destruction (sea

turtles) Need IEA’s: International

Environmental Agreements

The Card Game Analogy

SETUP: Each player is given two cards: one red and one black PLAY: Each player will anonymously hand in one card to Center

(i.e., to Prof.) PAYOFF to each participant after play of game:

10 Environmental Currency Units (ECU) for a red card in your hand 1 ECU for each participant for each red card Center holds Maximum payoff: (N-1)+5 [where N = # participants] Ex: 51 players: the maximum payoff is 60

REWARD: Anyone scoring over 35 gets a Kiss®!

YOUR TASK: figure out what to hand in to the Center

Choose Your Strategy

Hand in your red card? It yields less to you than if you keep it It yields far more to the group than if you keep it. Society wants you to hand in your red card

Keep your red card? It is worth far more to you in your hand Your payoff will be higher; society’s lower

Results

This experiment has been run many times typically ⅓ -- ⅔ of people hand in their red card Refer to Scott Barrett (2003)

When repeated with the same group, cooperation (handing in the red card) tends to decline

Analogous to transboundary environmental problems Fundamental conflct between individual and group interests Self-interest diverges from group interest Powerful incentives to shirk your responsibility

Understanding how to solve card problem gives insight into solving transboundary environmental problems

Can an Agreement Solve Problem?

A typical agreement Signatories agree to hand in red card Public display of what is being handed in (red or black) Only goes into effect if x% of people agree (eg, 60%) Participants post performance bond before each play (who keeps?)

Issues Should be self-enforcing (ie, no appeal to higher authority)--problem Penalties – how to enforce the agreement?

• Penalties for cheating (ie, not handing in red card)• Penalties for free-riding (ie, not joining but benefiting from agreement)

Must create an aggregate gain to participants Must be in best interest of individuals to join (both cooperators and

free-riders) – what if different countries start with different # red cards Must have means to distribute gain

Back to the Real World

Card game has lessons for the real world

Goal: identify desirable characteristics of international environmental agreements

How to think of an IEA

Global problem that affects many countries

Countries have to voluntarily agree to do something about the problem

Any penalties for cheating must be included in treaty

There can be no overarching enforcer

Desirable Attributes of a Successful IEA

Create an aggregate net benefit to participants overall gross benefits > overall gross costs

Distribute the aggregate gain among participants For each participant, benefits > costs (individual rationality) Self-interest important in convincing country to agree

Deter non-participation Must make it undesirable to remain outside agreement Trade sanctions most frequently used Design net benefits in > net benefits out (participation constraint)

Deter cheating among participants Penalties must be credible Trade sanctions are easiest to use

Deter entry of new non-participants (avoid “leakage”) Particularly appropriate for common property problems Saving a fishery increases rents and may induce non-fishing countries to

enter

Montreal ProtocolDesigned for CFC’s leading to Ozone Depletion

Quantitative emission limits for industrial, transition and developing countries

Industrial countries pay for added costs to developing countries

Trade sanctions for non-participants and violators

Initial protocol modest; gradually tightened over 10-year period

Ozone Levels ProjectedSource: World Met Org

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol

Emerged from Rio Conference in 1992 US signed and ratified UNFCCC Modeled after Montreal Protocol Kyoto Protocol (1997) defines emission

reductions for Annex I (developed) countries Developing countries largely exempt Penalties for noncompliance missing

Montreal vs. KyotoA partial comparison

Montreal Kyoto

Aggregate Net Benefit? YES YES??

Distribute Aggregate Gain NO NO

Deters nonparticipation? YES NO

Deters cheating? YES NO

Addresses leakage? YES NO

Environmental regulations in the developing world

Often environment is low on policy priority list – urge to industrialize

Policy focus: employment & income Diverse instruments used, hard to

generalize. Typically market based instruments not as

widely used or effective.

Environmental charges & funds Central & East Europe (planned

economies): high pollution last few decades

Attract limited international capital Instituted some environmental taxes

But no bite until decentralized Poland: careful CBA to attract debt-

for-nature, unusually successful

Planned economy emissions fees

Sulfur, NOx, carbon, some particulates, lead

Transportation tolls Water extraction charges, water

pollution fines, waste management fees, fertilizer and pesticide fees

Regulations in China

Most populous, poor ($5000 per capita GDP), one of most polluted countries

1979 law allows charging for pollution, by 1994 $2 billion collected.Fees charged when emissions above max.Fees too low to achieve standards.

Fees in Rio Negro, Colombia

Colombian economy growing quickly Water/air pollution major problems 1993 law that environmental damages

must be taken into accountStipulates use of economic

instrumentsFees implemented: 28% decline in

pollution in first 6 months

Voluntary emissions control in Mexico

Informal sector in Mexico: brick making Difficult to monitor, regulate (similar to

non-point source pollution) 20,000 brick kilns burn nasty stuff

Too difficult to enforce ban on dirty fuelsSubsidize propane, voluntary switchZoning for certain activitiesInvolve local grassroots

Info & institutions: Indonesia

Rapid economic growth – drastic exploitation of resources

“Program for Pollution Control Evaluation and Rating” (PROPER) – similar to TRI Reporting, evaluating, assisting firms Grades each industry, reports in press Very successful

Other countries have adopted similar (Mexico, Philippines, Papua New Guinea)…

Green national accounting

Measures of national income: GNP, GDPDon’t account for environmental

degradation and resource depletion Can give misleading measure of

national “well-being”, may lead to wrong policy.

Many adjustments have been proposed to “correct” standard measures.

“Natural capital” depreciation

Natural capital: the available endowment of land and natural resources

Measure depletion of natural resources (oil, timber, minerals, soils)

Subtract from standard measures Result: many developing nations show

substantial effect

Indonesia example: “Adjusted Net Domestic Product”

Pollution control & cleanup

How should pollution control and cleanup costs be accounted for in developed nations?

Should cleanup expenditures contribute to GNP? Some think not.

Main issue: don’t double count. These are legitimate expenditures in order to maintain environmental values.

How are national accounts used? Primary use: assist policy makers in

government.E.g. Gov’t expenditures on scientific

research are linked to current economic performance and climate.

United Nations has proposed a “System of Environmental and Economic Accounting”, some adjustments underway.

Paying for public goods

Public goods will be under-provided, externalities will not be internalized in free market.

Government intervention: tax revenues can pay for cleanup, regulation, public goods provision

But many taxes “distortionary”E.g. Income tax discourages work!Costs $1.40 to raise $1 in revenue

Double dividend

If we substitute distortionary taxes with pollution taxes, we may earn a “double dividend”Reduce pollution (and therefore

damage from pollution)Reduce distortionary taxes on labor

and thus the DWL from those taxes • This is called the “revenue recycling

effect”

A 3rd effect of pollution taxes

“Tax interaction effect” Polluting good and leisure are substitutes

• E.g. Gasoline and Leisure Tax pollution, demand for leisure shifts out If labor is still taxed, shift introduces an additional DWL

attributed to decrease in pollution This DWL decreases social welfare. Overall size of tax interaction effect varies among

polluting industries Estimate: pollution tax should be set at 2/3 of marginal

damage. Varies considerably from industry to industry