EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

The US biofuel mandate as a substitute for carbon cap-and-trade

Wyatt Thompson, Robert Johansson, Seth Meyer and Jarrett Whistance

Energy Policy, 2018, vol. 113, issue C, 368-375

Abstract: Environmental economists might recommend a cap-and-trade program as a good way to lower emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), but US carbon cap-and-trade legislation was proposed and failed to become law. Instead, the biofuel use mandate is the primary existing GHG reduction program in the United States. The mandate effectively requires a rising amount of GHG abatement each year, but allows regulated parties to buy and sell credits to meet annual obligations. Although many aspects of the biofuel mandate look similar to a cap-and-trade program, there are additional requirements, such as feedstock eligibility limitations and waivers. The existence of the mandates is presumably conditional on all the legal requirements, but these conditions represent a departure from a strict GHG cap-and-trade program.

Keywords: Biofuel; Ethanol; U.S. biofuel mandate; RFS; GHG; Cap-and-trade (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517307152
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:368-375

Access Statistics for this article

Energy Policy is currently edited by N. France

More articles in Energy Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().

 
Page updated 2019-06-29
Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:113:y:2018:i:c:p:368-375