Emissions Taxes Versus Intensity Standards: Second-Best Environmental Policies with Incomplete Regulation.

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

General Equilibrium Impacts of a Federal Clean Energy Standard (2016, background): “Holland (2012) points out that the smaller price increases from intensity standards can help limit emissions leakage and thereby reduce costs per reduction in (overall) emissions.”
Impacts of climate change on agriculture: Evidence from China (2016, background): “Holland (2012) shows that an intensity standard could be an inefficient instrument for reducing aggregate GHG emissions relative to an emissions target due to an implicit output subsidy.”
Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics (2016, background): “…permits to incentivize production can mitigate product market surplus losses and reduce emissions leakage ðsee Bernard, Fischer, and Fox 2007; Holland 2012Þ. Designing a policy that strikes the appropriate balance between curbing domestic GHG emissions and protecting the competitive…”
Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage (2017, background): “In particular, Holland (2012) shows that adding a consumption tax to an emission intensity standard can improve efficiency of unilateral climate policy, as standards trigger inefficiently high consumption.”