Climate Policies in a Fossil Fuel Producing Country - Demand Versus Supply Side Policies

Fæhn, Taran; Hagem, Cathrine; Lindholt, Lars; Mæland, Ståle; Rosendahl, Knut Einar

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2540052

Cited by 16 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our benchmark scenario, only one third of a given global reduction should be realised through demand side measures; the remaining two thirds should come through supply side measures, that is, by reducing oil extraction. (Faehn et al, 2017) The more countries that pursue a supply reduction strategy, the more they will foster a new global moral norm against fossil fuel production, which will raise the social costs of non-cooperation, incentivising supply reductions (Collier and Venables, 2015;F. Green, 2018).…”

Section: Primary Desirability Criterion: Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry

Green

Robeyns

2022

Roy. Inst. Philos. Suppl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the desirability of an idea that has not received the attention it deserves by political philosophers: that governments should bring privately-owned fossil fuel companies into public ownership with a view to managing their wind-down in the public interest – often simply referred to as ‘nationalising the fossil fuel industry’. We aim to make a conditional case for public ownership of fossil fuel companies. We will assume certain conditions about government motivations and capacities that are similar to assumptions made generally in the philosophical and economic analysis of climate policies: that the government is suitably motivated, has effective control over the companies it acquires, and is able to sustain this motivation and control for long-enough to wind-down acquired companies in the public interest. We argue that bringing fossil fuel companies into public ownership, under these conditions, allows the government to take ten actions that are in the public interest, which will enhance social justice, enable a fair division of burdens and benefits, and strengthen democracy. We consider four plausible objections. While some of these point to the need for further research, they do not undermine our claim that nationalising the fossil fuel industry is a policy option that merits serious consideration.

show abstract

Section: Primary Desirability Criterion: Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry

Green

Robeyns

2022

Roy. Inst. Philos. Suppl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By 2011, Nishimura and Yasumoto argued the UNFCCC Secretariat ought to create "a single global upstream carbon market" to curtail the right to extract (Nishimura and Yasumoto 2011). The scholarly literature on supply side and KIIG policy intensified starting in 2015, as seen in key contributions by Benedikter et al (2016a), Blondeel, Van de Graaf, and Haesebrouck (2020), Collins and Mendelevitch (2015), , Erickson, Lazarus, and Piggot (2018), Faehn et al (2017), Frumhoff, Heede, and Oreskes (2015), Gaulin and Le Billon (2020), Green (2018aGreen ( , 2018b, Green and Denniss (2018), Harrison (2015), Lazarus and van Asselt (2018), Lazarus, Erickson, and Tempest (2015), Le Billon and Kristoffersen (2019), Lenferna (2018), Newell and Simms (2019), Piggot (2018), Piggot et al (2018), Princen, Manno, and Martine (2015), and Strauch, Dordi, and Carter (2020). These researchers have established supply control policy as a fundamental policy tool alongside demand-side policies to address climate change.…”

Section: Barriers To National Kiig Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Amplifying “Keep It in the Ground” First-Movers: Toward a Comparative Framework

Carter

McKenzie

2020

Society & Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a framework for analyzing and extending the recent wave of national "keep it in the ground" (KIIG) bans on fossil fuel exploration and production. We situate this discussion in new theoretical work on decarbonization acceleration and then present an overview of KIIG movement and policy development. Next, drawing on the burgeoning supply side climate policy literature, we outline major barriers to constraining fossil fuel development, then focus on identifying conditions most conducive for KIIG policy. These include locally-rooted campaigns, the development of a pro-KIIG constituency that is horizontally dense and vertically integrated, resonant message framing, and support by well-placed norm entrepreneurs. We argue that early national efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground demark a critical juncture in global climate policy. Understanding the trajectory of these bans is a first step in extending these initiatives as part of the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050.

show abstract

“…This paper contributes to an emerging literature on supply-side policies that aim to curtail the size and extraction of fossil fuel reserves. Supply-side measures include government compensation for leaving fossil fuel undeveloped (Harstad 2012 ; Eichner and Pethig 2019 ), depletion quotas and confiscation of reserves (Asheim 2013 ), taxation of production (Faehn et al 2017 ) and coalition of coal producers (Richter et al 2018 ), limits on exploration and the removal of producer subsidies (Lazarus and van Asselt 2018 ), and ceasing the issuance of new leases for fossil fuel extraction (Erickson and Lazarus 2018 ). However, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and nationally determined contributions feature few if any supply-side measures (Piggot et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Curbing the volume extracted for export has a positive terms of trade effect, whereby selling extracted fossil fuel at higher prices compensates producers for foregone income from unextracted reserves (Asheim et al 2019). Combining supplyside measures with demand-side measures provides clearer signals on the future of fossil fuel production to discourage infrastructure investment (Erickson et al 2015) and lower overall costs of achieving emission targets, by one-third in the case of Norway (Faehn et al 2017). Shifting the carbon tax base from emissions to fossil fuel supply allows producers to retain a higher share of fossil fuel rents for reinvestment in low carbon assets (Peszko et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The supply-side climate policy of decreasing fossil fuel tax profiles: can subsidized reserves induce a green paradox?

Day

2022

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fossil fuel producers develop too many reserves for combustion due to subsidies for upfront development costs. The conventional wisdom is that downward-sloping tax profiles avoid green paradox outcomes by reducing present extraction. This paper shows that accounting for subsidized reserves development can induce green paradox outcomes for downward-sloping income tax profiles. A theoretical model linking reserves development and extraction with climate change damages is developed to explore conditions for the weak and strong green paradox outcomes of higher present extraction and cumulative damages. We find that the weak green paradox arises under higher and flatter income tax profiles. The strong green paradox is an ambiguous outcome without subsidized reserves development. Quantitative examples demonstrate the effect of downward-sloping tax profiles on crude oil extraction and how the strong green paradox arises when delayed emissions are less relevant for damages.

show abstract

Climate Policies in a Fossil Fuel Producing Country - Demand Versus Supply Side Policies

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry

On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry

Amplifying “Keep It in the Ground” First-Movers: Toward a Comparative Framework

The supply-side climate policy of decreasing fossil fuel tax profiles: can subsidized reserves induce a green paradox?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About