The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming
By H. Sinn. 2012
236 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eed5cf0f28adfead530db00f9cc5e17c046664fe
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
Citations in the corpus
- Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition (2020, background): “…Unruh, 2000: 817; Seto, 2016) through continued investment into capital-intensive fossil fuel projects, and to pre-empt the ‘green paradox’ of having producers rush to develop reserves before more stringent climate mitigation efforts shrink fossil fuel markets (Bauer et al., 2018; Sinn, 2012).”
- Economic growth and development with low‐carbon energy (2017, background): “First, they need to overcome the green paradox (Sinn 2012) and make sure reserves remain in the ground.”
- Energy transitions or additions? (2019, background): “tracting and importing fossil fuels through a carbon fee and dividend system, as suggested by James Hansen and the Citizens’ Climate Lobby [17,18], is one promising route, but it may need to be implemented alongside other supply-focused approaches [19] to increase its impact.”
- Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies (2018, background): “…forward their extraction of that resource, thereby reducing its market price, causing an increase in its consumption (a phenomenon dubbed Bthe Green Paradox^ by Sinn 2008, 2012).3 Supply-side policies can be a straightforward means to mitigate the impact of the Green Paradox (Sinn 2008, 2012).4”
- An Introduction to the Green Paradox: The Unintended Consequences of Climate Policies (2015, background): “According to Sinn (2012), unit extraction and exploration costs were on average 17 percent of market prices during the 2005–2009 period.”