RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Trade and the environment
By Gal Hochman (Energy and Bioscience Institute) and David Zilberman (Professor, Department for Agriculture and Resource Economics; Energy and Bioscience Institute), UC Berkeley.
The Earth抯 natural environment offers local benefits in the form of
open space and recreational opportunities. It also offers global
benefits in the form of existence and option values associated with
biodiversity. These gains, however, depend on the level of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, a global public good.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affect the surface temperature of the
Earth and are crucial in keeping our planet warm. Too much greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, however, can lead to global warming with
adverse effects upon the Earth抯 natural environment and human well
being. There is growing evidence that climate change is affected by
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, which can lead to a warmer
planet and more volatile weather patterns, as well as rising sea levels.
These changes in our climate may lead to reduction in productivity as
well as physical destruction, resulting in forced human migration and
causing immense economic losses and severe political instability,
globally.
The greenhouse gas emissions are what economists term stock pollution
problem that accumulate through the process of ongoing
industrialization. Human related greenhouse gas emissions is a product
of our modern way of life, and is affected by globalization and capital
flows, which leads to new demand for energy and higher energy prices.
Globalization and capital flows also increase demand for land, leading
to a loss of environmental amenities and land allocated to food
production ?resulting in higher food prices. These effects are observed
in China, for instance, where FDI and government investment have lifted
overall investment in China and contributed to its growth. This growth
produced sharp increases in demand for energy, and led China to become a
major importer of oil. China also halted some biofuel production because
the loss of land for food crops has produced record high food prices.
The major challenge is to slow or even reverse the accumulation of
greenhouse gases to a level that is tolerable and that would not lead to
negative consequences. This would require policies that drastically
reduce human made greenhouse gases, and lead to carbon sequestration and
storage. The policy is especially challenging given population and
economic growth in developing economies. Some policy scenarios in
developed countries aim at an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases
emissions, toward the end of the current century.
The reduction in greenhouse gases may require modification in behavior,
as well as drastic changes in technology. The main contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions include energy sources from fossil such as oil
and coal, deforestation in tropical forests, and land use management
practices. Thus, the reduction in greenhouse gases can be achieved by
reducing energy consumption, increasing energy use efficiency, using
cleaner energy sources, adopting improved agricultural and forestry
practices, and introducing carbon sequestration and storage
technologies. Existing technologies can meet some of these challenges,
but the set of technological tools needs to be augmented by successful
outcomes of new research and development efforts. These successful
outcomes that result in technological change may be associated with
large changes in investment and in the capital composition, as well as
changes in behavior.
The need to reduce anthropogenic emissions such as carbon emissions can
be obtained through a mix of policies, which include incentives to
modify behavior and investment in research and development of cleaner
technologies. The efficient policy is a uniform global price for carbon,
as well as uniform prices for other environmental amenities such as
land. The efficient policy can be implemented using carbon tax, and
subsidizing carbon sequestration and storage. Alternatively, under
certain conditions an efficient outcome can be achieved using tradable
permits. Yet another option might be to levy a tax on fuel consumption,
introduce land use management practices, and price other observable
activities based on the calculation of their greenhouse gas emissions.
This system should be complemented with increase spending on research
and development for clean technologies, as well as research and
monitoring activities to better assess the evolution of greenhouse gases
and their implications.
However, the difficulty of estimating the marginal cost of the pollution
externality usually prevents the application of an efficient solution,
and regulators resort to a second best alternative to pursue
cost-effective policies whereby a country or a global community aims to
achieve a predetermined pollution reduction target at the lowest cost.
Cost effective polices impose a uniform tax on greenhouse gases, that
may be implemented through carbon taxation or a cap and trade schemes.
However, policy instruments are chosen to meet multiple objectives (not
only efficiency), and their selection is affected by political economic
considerations. Thus, the objective of environmental regulation of
climate change may simply be to limit the increase in average
temperature or the amount of carbon emitted to the air.
Pollution problems usually are contained within countries, and
governments establish policies such as taxes, property rights, and
standards to regulate them. When, however, externalities are
transnational or global, as is the case of greenhouse gases, a governess
structure to establish and enforce policies is needed. That is the
reason for international agreements or international conventions that
establish mechanisms for sharing responsibilities for pollution
reduction and coordinating policy among countries. Although a ton of
carbon is a ton of carbon and so the price of carbon should not vary
widely among emitter, one cannot simply disregard any distributional
effects that may prevent countries from joining an international
agreement on the environment and adhering to their commitment in the
future. Differences in GDP, energy sector infrastructure, and growth
prospective among nations affect their perspective and preferences on
greenhouse gas management, resulting in further difficulties in reaching
an international agreement on the environment.
Differences among countries, in terms of endowments and technologies,
can be addressed by employing a compensating mechanism. With respect to
tradable permits, a compensation mechanism may include grandfathering
rights and allocation of permits. Another compensation mechanism that
should be further considered, especially with regards to land management
and land pricing practices, are payment for environmental services. This
is a mechanism to improve provision of indirect environmental services,
in which those who provide the environmental service get paid
(landowners are paid not to cut down the tropical forest and produce
soybeans), while those who benefit from environmental services pay for
their provision. Payment for environmental services can be used to
prevent deforestation in tropical forests, and induce carbon
sequestration in developing countries. Compensation can also be obtained
by linking environmental agreement with trade agreements, although the
cost will probably be less trade.
In addition to international differences, there are intersectoral
differences, making the design of effective polices to consistently
address greenhouse gas emissions in the urban agricultural sector, as
well as the industrial sector, very challenging. The design of climate
change polices require integration of scientific and economic data and
knowledge, and calls for interdisciplinary collaboration. One of the
major topics of research on climate change should aim to address issues
of irreversibility and uncertainty.
The evolution of the biofuel sector and the policies that guided it,
illustrates some of the challenges of establishing policy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Although many expected that the introduction
of biofuels to result in less dependence on foreign oil and less
greenhouse gas emissions from fuel consumption, the actual effect of
biofuels on greenhouse gases depend on the feedstock used and the
technology used to convert the feedstock to biofuels. If not
appropriately produced and processed, biofuels may actually result in an
increase in greenhouse gases. The introduction of biofuels also had
unintended consequences on world food prices. Even though biofuels were
not the main contributor to the food price inflation of 2007/08, and the
crisis was a product of years of growing demand for food resulting from
industrialization and economic growth in Asia and elsewhere that was not
matched by an increase in agricultural productivity, the diversion of
some food commodities to biofuels made the situation more acute.
Agricultural biotechnology unambiguously reduces the land constraint and
attenuates the impacts of biofuel adoption on food supply and land
allocations. Investment in agricultural biotechnology has slowed,
however, in part because of regulation and bans in Europe and elsewhere.
These results suggest a new commitment to agricultural biotechnology, as
well as second-generation biofuels, may be needed to address the new
energy paradigm. Such policies would be consistent with heightened
environmental concern in the developed world.
Transnational cooperation among countries aimed at reducing greenhouse
gases is needed now. The much-needed environmental agreement should lead
to international institutions that result in emissions reductions, but
limit the damage to output and welfare. It should make reasonable
demands so nations can join them and abide by their commitment in the
future, and develop an appropriate compensation mechanism that will help
bring as many countries on board as possible. The cost of delaying an
agreement goes beyond excess emissions in the interim, and so we need to
act now.