Duke Wiki  logo
Child pages
  • PLCY686 - Env Policy Tools
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Created/Maintained by NSSC,
with the support of
Nicholas Marketing
and Communications
and Nicholas IT.

Need help? Email Nicki Admin

Content within this site
do NOT represent the views
or endorsements of the
Nicholas School and
Duke University. Opinions
herein are solely those
of contributors.

Insert name of course

Course Stats

Instructor(s): Pete Andrews

Units: 3

Semester Offered: Spring


Skills and Career Applications

This is more of "soft" class rather than a tools; however, almost any type of environmental program/policy under the sun is covered in the class (regulations/ subsidies/ certifications/ ecosystem service payments...) and there is a 20-page term paper on the policy of your choice, thus it's a great overview and a way to get specialized knowledge in any specific policy or program you're interested in.

Some have used this as a substitute to EEP requirement for Environmental Politics; but it's  likely a case by case approval.

In many ways, it would be good to take this course your 2nd semester of your first year because it exposes you to so many different topics.  Commuting adds time and can be prohibitive.

Registration Advice

E-mail the prof to get permission.  Fill out appropriate paperwork with admin here at Nicholas School.  Set up your UNC onyen, email (forwarding), and all that before class starts if you can.

Student Opinions

A solid course.


* Broad and somewhat introductory, providing a thorough framework for thinking about and analyzing environmental policy. Overall, a good class with interesting, manageable readings and an open discussion and lecture format. Students come from a variety of backgrounds (engineering, planning etc) and the professor is really generous with letting people talk, thus its especially a good glass for ESCs or those with less policy background...  

* Probably advisable to take this course prior to Environmental Law, though non-regulatory/non-legislative environmental policy tools as well as comparative international/state/local policy (lacking in ENV285) are covered in this class. 

* For those who have taken ENV 270, much of the discussion on how taxes/trading schemes work will be repetitive; real-life comparative case studies on how successful they've been in real life, or what political factors were involved will be informative.

*I'm a huge fan of case studies, so this course has been very interesting in that respect.  From the syllabus, you can see that there are usually a few required articles and many suggested readings.  While you might not have time EVERY week to read more, many of the suggested readings are good as well.

*Professor Andrews is very encouraging and structures each class fairly successfully.  He starts with asking if "Anyone seen a current event/environmental policy topic they want to share?"  followed by introduction to topic and brainstorming (poses questions to the class to spur discussion; then goes through his slides allowing for questions.  It's formulaic but works to get people to pipe up and talk/share general knowledge ideas or questions.  I feel as though if I'd met him last year, I would have had a great contact for my internship last summer.  Pete knows a lot and has advised previous alumni of the MEM program who went to UNC for undergrad.

The Instructor's Take...

This space is exclusively for the instructor to broadly comment on his or her course, and respond to commonly received feedback, explain methods and approaches, and encourage student registration. Instructors: Please limit to 300 words, or link to a wiki page of your own creation to explain in detail.

PLCY 686 / ENST 686 / ENVR 686 Environmental Policy Instruments (3) Spring 2009 MW 3:30-4:45 DE 307 Instructors: Professor Richard Andrews 202A Abernethy Hall, 843-5011
Email: pete_andrews@unc.edu Office hours: Tuesdays and Thursdays 4-5 or by appointment

Public policy interventions are widely used to promote particular environmental management outcomes such as reduction of pollutant emissions and the sustainable management of natural species and ecosystems; they also are the subject of a large critical literature concerning their relative effectiveness and other impacts and consequences. This course introduces many of the most widely used types of these policy instruments, criteria for comparing and evaluating them, and applied examples of each. The objective of the course is to challenge students to undertake the task of designing such instruments for use on contemporary environmental problems both within the United States and internationally. The course is intended primarily for advanced undergraduates and graduate and professional students in Public Policy, Environmental Studies, Environmental Sciences and Engineering, City and Regional Planning, and related fields. Advanced undergraduates and graduate students in other fields may be admitted with the permission of the instructor. Since many policy instruments are based on economic incentives, it is expected that all students will be familiar with basic concepts in microeconomics and their policy applications (at least ECON 101 or PLAN 210 or equivalent; preferably ECON 310 or 410).

Readings The course has three assigned books: Sterner, Thomas. 2003. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press. Pearce, David, Anil Markandya, and Ed Barbier. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications. Tietenberg, Tom H. 2006. Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice. Second Edition, RFF Press. All three books are available from Student Stores. In addition, students may find the following U.S. EPA report useful background reading, for descriptive information on the variety of environmental policy tools and applications in use by U.S. EPA: U.S. EPA. 2001. The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001. Available on line from EPA or on Blackboard site.
Much of the course material, however, will be drawn from articles, reports and other additional readings which will be posted on electronic library reserves or on UNC's Blackboard course support site (*http://blackboard.unc.edu*). Please start by going to this site and downloading an electronic copy of the course syllabus as soon as possible. This will allow you to access some readings directly from hotlinks in the syllabus. Format The course will meet for two sessions per week. The format will be a mixture of lecture and discussion, with emphasis on critical analysis of readings and discussion of issues and cases. Readings listed as "Background" are not required but are listed as additional references that you may find useful for further knowledge on the topic. Class participation is an important element of the course, both in your grade and for the intellectual value of the class for everyone. It is expected that all students will come to each class having read the assigned readings, thought about the questions they raise, and prepared to participate actively in discussions. It is also expected that during class periods, everyone will devote their full attention to the class, and will refrain from competing activities such as web-surfing, emailing, texting and other competing forms of multi-tasking.

Written Assignments and Grading Student evaluation will be based on the following: 1. Paper on price vs. quantity instruments for greenhouse gas reduction (10%) 2. A few class assignments and presentations, including debates on several topics (10%) 3. Term paper (40%) 4. Final Exam (30%) 5. Class participation (10%)

Term Paper: analysis of an environmental policy tools application. Each student is expected to develop and submit a paper examining in detail the potential for applying one or more policy instruments to correcting an environmental problem of your choice. An initial version of the paper will be submitted for review and comments, and then revised and refined before submission for final grading. The paper should show your detailed understanding of the principles involved both with the tools and with the problem to which you propose to apply them, the essential characteristics and design characteristics that would need to be considered in designing such an application, and the likely challenges that would need to be considered and planned for in making it effective and avoiding potential unintended side effects. The paper may be either a critical analysis of an existing application with your proposals for improving it; or it may propose a design for a new application of policy tools to a problem not yet well addressed by such instruments. In either case this is intended as an exercise both in critical analysis and in creative policy design, with close attention to the essential details of designing such an application.
A brief statement of your proposed topic and an initial working bibliography of anticipated reference sources will be due on Monday, February 23. A draft of the paper is to be submitted by Monday, March 30, for review and comments and a provisional grading by the instructor.
The final graded version of the paper (anticipated length ~15-20 pages, but length flexible depending on what you have to say), with revisions and refinements, will be due at the final class of the semester, Monday, April 27. There are many interesting current examples of environmental policy tool applications for your consideration: just a few examples include proposals for carbon taxes vs. tradable emission allowances for greenhouse gas reduction in the U.S., similar or different proposals being implemented in the European Union (and more broadly internationally), gasoline taxes to reduce carbon and other emissions, EU proposals to charge aircraft emission fees, federal and state tax credits to promote renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) portfolio standards, "net metering," and "public benefit funds" (taxes on energy use to subsidize EE/RE technologies), payments for ecosystem services for forest conservation and watershed protection (and carbon offset credits), extended producer responsibility mandates for product wastes over their full life cycles (e.g. for packaging, and for computers and other electronic products), "debt for nature swaps" with developing countries, liability and insurance policy proposals for dealing with the prospect of sea-level rise, subsidies and tax credits of various sorts for combining economic recovery stimulus with environmental goals, and many others. Please see the instructor about these or other ideas for topics. Documenting source materials and avoiding plagiarism It is very important that you develop good habits of documenting the sources of both factual statements and the ideas and arguments of other people that you use in any paper you write. One basic reason for this is to be able to support the statements you make and the facts you use, both for your own future use and if anyone else should question or disagree with them. A second is to distinguish clearly between someone else's ideas and arguments and your own, and not confuse the two. And a third is to protect your own integrity against either deliberate or accidental representation of someone else's ideas or work as your own, which if intentional is known as plagiarism and is a serious violation of the UNC Honor Code and of the standards of ethical writing.
Please read the handout on the Blackboard site for more detailed suggestions on this subject. For additional detail on proper citation, plagiarism, and proper use of other authors' materials, see http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html*. For an excellent discussion of criteria for evaluation of the quality of source materials on Internet web sites, see* http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html*. For handouts on other good writing practices,* http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/*.*
CLASS SESSIONS AND READINGS 1/12 Introduction; course overview; NC climate policy example 1/14 Overview of environmental policy instruments MacRae, Duncan, and Dale Whittington. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice. Introduction. pp. 1-26 Sterner 67-70 Gunningham, Neil, and Peter Grabosky. 1998. Instruments for Environmental Protection. Chapter 2 in their Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York: Oxford/Clarendon Press, pp. 37-91 Background: U.S. EPA. 2001. The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001. Available on Blackboard site or on line from EPA. Goodstein, Eban. 2005. Incentive-Based Regulation: Theory, and Incentive-Based Regulation: Practice. Chapters 16 and 17 in his Economics and the Environment, 4th ed. (NY:Wiley) 1/19 No class (MLK holiday) 1/21 Valuing Environmental Assets Pearce, David, et al. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Background: Frank Convery commentary on David Pearce (Kyoto, July 2006) Professor David Pearce (obituary, 2005) 1/26 Criteria and behavioral barriers: what makes a good environmental policy instrument? Assignment: Using the blank options matrix available below, list the criteria you would use to evaluate the desirable characteristics and strengths and weaknesses of an environmental policy instrument. Print out a copy with your name on it to turn in. MacRae and Whittington (1997). Expert Advice for Policy Choice. Chapter 2: Selecting Criteria. pp. 66-111.
(skim as example; do not assume that you would use the same criteria for an environmental policy instrument). W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The options evaluation matrix. On line (accessed January 10, 2009) at http://www.wkkf.org/advocacyhandbook/page4b3.html
Blank options matrix: http://www.wkkf.org/advocacyhandbook/docs/Blank_Options_EvaluationMatrix.doc Stern, Paul C. 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424.
Whitfield, Dexter. 2007. Options Appraisal Criteria and Matrix. European Services Strategy Unit. On line (accessed January 10, 2009) at http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/publications/essu-research-reports/essu-research-report-no-2-options-appraisal-cr/essu-options-appraisal.pdf 1/28 Regulatory instruments (ambient standards; technology-based, technology-forcing, and performance-based permits; "command- and-control" versus other types). Cases: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act Cole & Grossman 2005, Institutional and Technological Constraints on Environmental Instrument Choice: A Case Study of the U.S. Clean Air Act. Chapter 10 in Environmental Policymaking: Assessing the Use of Alternative Policy Instruments, edited by Michael T. Hatch (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), pp.225-44. Harrington/Morgenstern/Sterner (HMS) chap. 1 (SO2 emissions in Germany), chap. 3 (industrial water pollution in the US) Background: Sterner, Chapter 6, p. 71-81. Latin, Howard. 1985. Ideal Versus Real Regulatory Efficiency: Implementation of Uniform Standards and "Fine-Tuning" Regulatory Reforms. Stanford Law Review 37:1267-1332. 2/2 Regulatory instruments (risk-based) Russell, Milton, and Michael Gruber. 1987. Risk Assessment in Environmental Policy-Making. Science 236:286-290. 2/4 Environmental taxes and charges Sterner, Chapter 8, p. 94-101. Miranda, Marie Lynn and Brack Hale. 2002. "A Taxing Environment: Evaluating the Multiple Objectives of Environmental Taxes." Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 5289-5295. Background:
Wang, Hua, and Ming Chen. 1999. How the Chinese system of charges and subsidies affects pollution control efforts by China's top polluters. World Bank Research Paper 2198. Wang, Hua, and David Wheeler. 2005. Financial incentives and endogenous enforcement in China's pollution levy system. J. Environ. Econ. and Mgt. 49: 174-96.
Blackman, Allen, and Winston Harrington. 1998. The Use of Economic Incentives in Developing Countries: Lessons from International Experience with Industrial Air Pollution. RFF Discussion Paper 99-39.
Stavins, Robert N., and Bradley W. Whitehead. 1992. Pollution Charges for Environmental Protection. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 17:187-210.
Stavins, Robert N. 2001. Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. In The Handbook of Environmental Economics, edited by Karl-Göran Mäler and Jeffrey Vincent. Amsterdam: North Holland/Elsevier. 2/9 Debate: environmental taxes and charges
(Debate roles to be assigned 2/2 to randomly selected individuals)
Pryne, Eric. 2004. Oregon to test mileage tax as replacement for gas tax. Seattle Times, July 5, 2004
Siceloff, Bruce. 2007. Drivers might pay road taxes by mile. Raleigh News & Observer, June 17, 2007.
Langer, Therese. 2005. Vehicle Efficiency Incentives: An Update on Feebates for States. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report No. T051. pp. 4-9. http://www.oilendgame.com/pdfs/Implementation/WtOEg_FeebatesUpdate.pdf (accessed January 10, 2009) 2/11 Subsidies and investments Sterner, Chapter 9, p. 102-108. Myers, Norman. 1998. Perverse Subsidies. Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), pp. 1-12, 17-30. Readings on tax credits TBA Background: U.S. EPA. 2001. Subsidies for Pollution Control. Pp. 111-42 in its The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001.
Gilbert E. Metcalf. 2007. Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 142. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt142.pdf 2/16 Topic statement and initial working bibliography due 2/16 Tradable permits (cases: lead and CFC production, Clean Air Act 1990) Tietenberg, T. Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice. Chapters 1-5 (pp. 1-126) 2/18 Tradable permits (cont.) (cases: other applications - water pollutant discharges, fishing quotas) Tietenberg, T. Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice. Chapters 6-9 (pp. 127-206) Background:
Kerr, Robert L.; Steven J. Anderson, and John Jaksch. 2000. Cross-cutting analysis of trading programs: case studies in air, water, and wetland mitigation trading systems. Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection, Research Paper No. 6. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration. 2/23 Paper due (~5 pp.): compare price vs. quantity control approaches for GHG reduction 2/23 Debate: Price vs. quantity controls for greenhouse gas reduction
(Debate roles to be assigned 2/16 to randomly selected individuals) Pizer, William. 1999. Choosing Price or Quantity Controls for Greenhouse Gases. Climate Issues Brief No. 17. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Bennett, Drake. 2005. Emission control. Boston Globe, December 18, 2005. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/emission_control?mode=PF Background: Prasad, Monica. 2008. On Carbon, Tax and Don't Spend. New York Times, March 25, 2008 Inglis, Bob, and Arthur Laffer. 2008. An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To. New York Times, December 28, 2008 Kanter, James. 2008. The Trouble With Markets for Carbon. NY Times, June 20, 2008
Boyce, James K., & Matthew Riddle. 2007. Cap and Dividend: How to Curb Global Warming While Protecting the Incomes of American Families. On line (accessed 1/10/09) at http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_101-150/WP150.pdf
Sergey Paltsev, John M. Reilly, Henry D. Jacoby, A. Denny Ellerman and Kok Hou Tay. 2003. Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 97. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt97.pdf
Gilbert Metcalf, Sergey Paltsev, John Reilly, Henry Jacoby and Jennifer Holak. 2008. Analysis of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 160. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt160.pdf
Paltsev, J.M. Reilly, H.D. Jacoby, A.C. Gurgel, G.E. Metcalf, A.P. Sokolov and J.F. Holak. 2007. Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 146. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146_Summary.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf Weitzman, Martin. 1974. Prices vs. Quantities. Review of Economic Studies. Vol. 41, No. 4, Oct. 477-491. Kaplow, Louis, and Steven Shavell. 2002. On the Superiority of Corrective Taxes to Quantity Regulation. American Law and Economics Review. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-17. 2/25 Carbon emissions: taxes vs. trading Guest lecturer - Brian Murray (Nicholas Institute, Duke) Murray, Brian C.; Newell, Richard G.; and William A. Pizer. 2009. Balancing Cost and Emissions Certainty: An Allowance Reserve for Cap-and-Trade. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, January 6, 2009, pp. 1-20. 3/2 Markets for Ecosystem Services Salzman, James. Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services: Notes from the Field. NYU Law Journal 80: 870-961 Pagiola, Stefano; Arcenas, Agustin; and Gunars Platais. 2005. Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Development 33:237-53.
Carbon credits and offsets:
Tufts Climate Initiative. Carbon offset types. On line (accessed Jan. 10, 2009) at http://www.tufts.edu/tie/carbonoffsets/offsetprojects.htm#renewable
Rosen-Molina, Mike. 2007. Carbon Credit Report: Can buying carbon credits to offset the greenhouse gases you spew in daily life really help save us from global warming? East Bay Monthly, http://www.themonthly.com/feature-08-07.html (accessed 1/10/09); OR
Revkin, Andrew. 2007. Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green? NY Times, April 29, 2007
Scherr, Sarah J.; Bennett, Michael T.; Loughney, Molly; and Kerstin Canby. 2006. Developing Future Ecosystem Services Payments in China: Lessons Learned from International Experience. http://www.forest-trends.org/index.php
Wikipedia. Carbon Offsets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
Ecosystem Marketplace (Katoomba Group). 2007. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2007. Executive Summary, pp. 4-8. On line (accessed Jan. 10, 2009) at http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket18July_Final.pdf
Trexler Climate-Energy Services. 2006. A Consumers' Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers. Clean Air / Cool Planet. On line (accessed January 10, 2009) at http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf 3/04 Markets for Ecosystem Services Guest lecturer - Professor Jim Salzman (Duke Law) Frisch, Carla M. 2006. Payment for Ecosystem Services: A Consideration of New York's Catskill/Delaware Watershed. UNC Chapel Hill Senior Honors Thesis 2006, Chapters 4-5. Background: Sagoff, Mark. "The Catskills Parable." PERC Reports. http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=547 *(Original and longer version: "On the Value of Natural Ecosystems: The Catskills Parable." Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 22. ½ (2002): 10-16.)*
Salzman, James. "What Paying for Ecosystem Services Means." PERC Reports. http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=683 3/9, 3/11 No class (spring break) 3/16 Information tools: disclosure/reporting (cases: US Toxics Release Inventory, Indonesia's PROPER program)
Tietenberg, Tom, and David Wheeler. 1998. Empowering the Community: Information Strategies for Pollution Control. Frontiers of Environmental Economics, edited by H. Folmer, H. L. Gabel, S. Gerking and A. Rose. (Cheltenham,UK: Edward Elgar, 2001), pp. 85-120.
EPA. The Toxics Release Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/tri/triprogram/whatis.htm
Afsah, Shakeb, and Jeffrey R. Vincent. 1997. Putting Pressure on Polluters: Indonesia's PROPER Program. Case Study for the HIID 1997 Asia Environmental Economics
Policy Seminar, Harvard Institute for International Development. Background:
Beierle, Thomas C. 2003. Environmental Information Disclosure: Three Cases of Policy and Politics. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper RFF-DP-03-16.
Case, David. 2001. The law and economics of environmental information as regulation. Environmental Law Reporter 31:10773-89. LaPlante, Benoit, Jerome Foulon and Paul Lanoie. 2002. Incentives for pollution control: Regulation or information? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 2002, 169-187. U.S. EPA. 2001. Information Disclosure. Pp. 153-72 in its The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001. 3/18 Information tools: labeling (cases: "ecolabels," "carbon footprint" labels) Sterner, pp. 122-26 Thøgersen, John. 2002. Promoting "green" consumer behavior with eco-labels. Chapter 5 in New Tools for Environmental Protection, edited by Thomas Dietz and Paul C. Stern. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 83-104. Müller, Edda. 2005. Environmental Labeling, Innovation, and the Toolbox of Environmental Policy: Lessons Learned from the German Blue Angel Program. Chapter 2 in Environmental Policymaking: Assessing the Use of Alternative Policy Instruments, edited by Michael T. Hatch (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), pp.17-44. Readings on carbon footprint labeling TBA 3/23 Liability and Insurance Guest lecturer - Professor Don Hornstein (UNC Law) Sterner, Chapter 10, p. 115-119. Shavell, Steven. 1984. Liability for Harm versus Regulation for Safety. Journal of Legal Studies 13:357-74 Abraham, Kenneth S. 1988. Environmental Liability and the Limits of Insurance. Columbia Law Review 88(5): 942-988 Additional reading(s) TBA Background: Richardson, Benjamin J. 2002. Mandating Environmental Liability Insurance. 12 Duke Envtl. L. & Policy Forum 12: 293-329. U.S. EPA. 2001. Liability Approaches. Pp. 143-51 in its The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001. 3/25 Product responsibility (life-cycle analysis, extended producer responsibility) Walls, Margaret. 2003. The Role of Economics in Extended Producer Responsibility: Making Policy Choices and Setting Policy Goals. Discussion Paper 03-11. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
3/30 Draft research papers due 3/30 "Voluntary" approaches Sterner, pp. 119-22 Andrews, R. N. L. 1998. Environmental Regulation and Business "Self-Regulation." Policy Sciences 31:177-97. Andrews, R. N. L.; Hutson, A.; and D. Edwards Jr. 2006. Environmental Management Under Pressure: How Do Mandates Affect Performance? Chapter 5 in Leveraging the Private Sector: Management-Based Strategies for Improving Environmental Performance, edited by Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, pp. 111-136. May, Peter J. 2005. Regulation and Compliance Motivations: Examining Different Approaches. Public Administration Review 65(1):31-44 Background: Hatch, Michael T. 2005. Voluntary Agreements: Cornerstone or Fig Leaf in German Climate Change Policy? Chapter 5 in his Environmental Policymaking: Assessing the Use of Alternative Policy Instruments (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), pp. 97-124
Mazurek, Janice. 1998. The use of voluntary agreements in the United States: an initial survey. Document No. ENV/EPOC/GEEI(98)27/FINAL. Paris: OECD. U.S. EPA. 2001. Voluntary Programs. Pp. 173-96 in its The United States Experience With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment, Report No. EPA-240-R-01-001, January 2001. 4/1 International applications Wiener, Jonathan B. 1999. Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context. 108 Yale Law J. 678 Background:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. International Experiences With Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. Report No. EPA-236-R-04-001
(Browse as interested) Publications of the Environment and Economy Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-23223-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html 4/6 Instrument combinations and comparative evaluations Sterner Chap. 18, Design of policy instruments, pp. 212-218. Sterner Chap. 32, Policy issues and potential solutions, pp. 432-447. 4/8 State level instruments (Case: Renewable energy policy instruments) PTC vs ITC, RPS laws? Feed-in pricing laws (e.g. net metering)? Readings TBA 4/13 Obama administration initiatives (Case: proposed instruments for combining economic stimulus with greening energy, economy and jobs)
The Obama agenda for manufacturing and green jobs. On line (accessed January 10, 2009) at http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/
The Obama-Biden Energy Plan. On line (accessed January 10, 2009) at http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/ Climate change: Why a verdant New Deal would be a bad deal. The Economist, Nov. 6, 2008
Blinder, Alan. 2008. A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus. New York Times, July 27, 2008
Other readings TBA 4/15 Institutional challenges to instrument choice Keohane, Nathaniel O.; Richard L. Revesz; and Robert N. Stavins. 1998. The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Envr. Law Rev. 22:313-67. 4/20, 4/22 No class (research time for papers) 4/27 Final papers due 4/27 Concluding observations and discussion 5/6 FINAL EXAM: Wednesday, May 6, 4:00-7:00 p.m. A few other useful web sites (multiple documents on each):
Resources for the Future: http://www.rff.org/rff/Publications (See separate sections for discussion papers, RFF reports, issues briefs, etc., or search by keyword or author)
Prof. Tom Tietenberg's home page: http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/ (Includes additional papers on applications of emissions trading and other economic incentive tools to environmental issues, particular several very interesting papers on applications to greenhouse-gas emission trading schemes).
U.S. EPA National Center for Environmental Economics web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/Webpages/EnvironmentalEconomicsReports.html
Publications of the Environment and Economy Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-23223-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
World Bank's New Ideas in Pollution Regulation web page: http://www.worldbank.org/nipr/
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/all-reports.php

  • No labels