How I learned to stop worrying and love the RET

John Quiggin

No 152099, Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers from University of Queensland, School of Economics

Abstract: In this chapter, it is argued on the contrary that the RET is not merely complementary to the carbon market, but is a welfare-improving policy, even after the introduction of the carbon price. The central argument is that, because of political resistance to carbon pricing, the price has been set at a level that is below that of the optimal path, and must increase more rapidly than would be consistent with a Hotelling rule (Hotelling 1931). The relevant criterion for assessing the RET is not the cost of mitigation relative to the current carbon price but the cost relative to the true shadow price of CO2 emissions, which must be assessed in relation to abatement costs that must be incurred in the future if emissions are to be reduced in line with the government’s stated targets.

Keywords: Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource/Energy Economics and Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 13
Date: 2013-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ene, nep-env and nep-pke
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/152099/files/C13_2.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:uqsers:152099

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.152099

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers from University of Queensland, School of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().