• Energy Research
• 1. No poverty close
• 3. Good health close
• EU close
• SSRN Electronic Journal close

With a focus on alternative methods for accelerating clean energy policy adoption, this study introduces an innovative financing scheme for renewable and energy efficiency deployment. Financing barriers represent a notable obstacle for energy improvements and this is particularly the case for low-income households. Limited access to credit, due to socio-economic status and the lack of guarantees, are key issues related to financing barriers. Implementing a policy such as PACE – Property Assessed Clean Energy – allows for the provision of up-front funds for residential property owners to install electric and thermal solar systems and make energy-efficiency improvements to their buildings. This paper will inform the design of better policies tailored to the creation of the appropriate conditions for such investments to occur, especially when the lack of access to capital tends to stall them.

Climate change impacts are stochastic and highly uncertain and moreover heterogeneous across regions. That is, there is a potential to sharing this risk ex-ante across regions and hence to reduce the welfare-economic costs of these risks. We analyze how climate risks could be reduced via an insurance scheme at the global scale across regions and quantify the potential welfare gains. We introduce risk sharing of global climate risk represented by the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and introduce an asset-based insurance scheme to allow for risk sharing across regions. We estimate that such risk sharing scheme could lead to welfare gains reducing the global costs of climate change by up to 15%. Such a scheme implies transfers of about USD 200 billion per year and faces important implementation challenges. The results provide a motivation for the loss and damage mechanism related negotiations about sharing risks of climate change at the global level.

The health impacts of global climate change mitigation will affect local populations differently. However, most co-benefits analyses have been done at a global level, with relatively few studies providing local level results. We aimed to quantify the local health impacts due to fine particles (PM2.5) under the governance arrangements embedded in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs1-5) under two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 2.6 and 8.5) in local populations of Mozambique, India, and Spain. We simulated the SSP-RCP scenarios using the Global Change Analysis Model, which was linked to the TM5-FASST model to estimate PM2.5 levels. PM2.5 levels were calibrated with local measurements. We used comparative risk assessment methods to estimate attributable premature deaths due to PM2.5 linking local population and mortality data with PM2.5-mortality relationships from the literature, and incorporating population projections under the SSPs. PM2.5 attributable burdens in 2050 differed across SSP-RCP scenarios, and sensitivity of results across scenarios varied across populations. Future attributable mortality burden of PM2.5 was highly sensitive to assumptions about how populations will change according to SSP. SSPs reflecting high challenges for adaptation (SSPs 3 and 4) consistently resulted in the highest PM2.5 attributable burdens mid-century. Our analysis of local PM2.5 attributable premature deaths under SSP-RCP scenarios in three local populations highlights the importance of both socioeconomic development and climate policy in reducing the health burden from air pollution. Sensitivity of future PM2.5 mortality burden to SSPs was particularly evident in low- and middle- income country settings due either to high air pollution levels or dynamic populations.

The paper presents findings of a large study on socio-economic impacts of the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster on the Japanese agriculture and food sector. It contains fourteen parts: introduction with the framework of analysis; a brief description of events and their overall social, economic and environmental effects; assessments on affected farms and agricultural resources; progress and challenges of restoration of agricultural communities, lands, infrastructure and businesses; assessments of impacts on food industries; analysis of radioactive contamination of agri-food products; evaluation of the effects on markets, consumers and international trade; analysis of effects on food regulation and inspection system; estimates on farms and agri-businesses damages from the nuclear accident; assessment of overall impact on farms and agricultural resources; assessment of overall impact on agricultural productions; assessment of overall impact on agricultural output and income; assessment of overall impact on farm economy; and conclusion with lessons and recommendations.

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a key tool in climate policy. The SCC expresses in monetary terms the social impact of the emission of a ton of CO2 in a given year. The SCC is calculated using a ‘social welfare function’ (SWF): a method for assessing social welfare. The dominant SWF in climate policy is the discounted-utilitarian SWF. Individuals’ well-being numbers (utilities) are summed, and the values for later generations are reduced (‘discounted’). This SWF has been criticized for ignoring the distribution of well-being and including an arbitrary time preference. Here, we use a ‘prioritarian’ SWF, with no time discount, to calculate the SCC. This SWF gives extra weight (‘priority’) to worse-off individuals. Prioritarianism is a well-developed concept in ethics and welfare economics, but has been rarely used in climate scholarship. We find substantial differences between the discounted-utilitarian and non-discounted prioritarian SCCs.

Behavioral Economics has in recent years played a key role in informing the design of non-price interventions aimed at promoting energy conservation behaviors in residential housing. Some of the most influential contributions of the discipline in an applied setting have centered around the development of norm-based interventions. The success that these interventions have had in specific contexts presents an opportunity to exploit them as tools for tackling a prevalent type of poverty at the EU level: energy poverty. Recent contributions to the literature highlight the role of inefficient energy behavior as a significant driver of this particular type of poverty, which is characterized by an inability to afford the basic energy services necessary to guarantee a decent standard of living. Therefore, the effectiveness of norm-based interventions in vulnerable populations merits further investigation to determine whether this approach can suitably address the behavioral components of energy poverty by promoting efficient energy consumption and conservation efforts. This study reports on a pilot conducted in an exemplary social housing context (located in Bolzano, Italy) with the aim to assess the effectiveness of social comparison interventions in energy vulnerable groups. Our investigated cohort covers an initial small sample of apartments with a large representatives of elderly individuals and other energy-vulnerable groups. Using a design that combines appeals to injunctive and descriptive norms embedded within In-Home Devices (IHD) in recently retrofitted homes, our objective is to set a basis for the assessment of effectiveness of these types of interventions in social housing populations. Our study seeks to provide useful methodological insights to policy makers on how to effectively design behaviorally informed interventions aimed at tackling energy poverty. Despite the current data limitations, our results do seem to suggest that uniformly applied norm-based interventions may have potentially backfiring effects in small-scale implementations. Therefore, they suggest that attention needs to be paid to household composition and pre-existing levels of consumption, when designing behavior-change interventions in these groups.JEL Classification: C93; D03; D04; D12; D19; D91; Q40.

Industrial policy has long been criticized as subject to protectionist interests; accordingly, subsidies to domestic producers face disciplines under World Trade Organization agreements, without exceptions for environmental purposes. Now green industrial policy is gaining popularity as governments search for low-carbon solutions that also provide jobs at home. The strategic trade literature has largely ignored the issue of market failures related to green goods. I consider the market for a new environmental good (like low-carbon technology) whose downstream consumption provides external benefits (like reduced emissions). Governments may have some preference for supporting domestic production, such as by interest-group lobbying, introducing a political distortion in their objective function. I examine the national incentives and global rationales for offering production (upstream) and deployment (downstream) subsidies in producer countries, allowing that some of the downstream market may lie in nonregulating third-party countries. Restraints on upstream subsidies erode global welfare when environmental externalities are large enough relative to political distortions. Climate finance is an effective alternative if political distortions are large and governments do not undervalue carbon costs. Numerical simulations of the case of renewable energy indicate that a modest social cost of carbon can imply benefits from allowing upstream subsidies.