Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution abatement options

Ecological Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1770-1777

  Bréchet, Thierry ^a   Jouvet, Pierre André ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS OUEST NANTERRE LA DÉFENSE   (France)

Author keywords

Environmental management; No regret options; Pollution

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; POLLUTION CONTROL;

EID: 62449339014     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anderson S.T., and Newell R.G. Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits. Resource and Energy Economics 26 (2004) 27-50
2. Ambec S., and Barla Ph. A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis. Economics Letters 75 3 (2002) 355-360
3. Ambec S., and Barla Ph. Can environmental regulation be good for business? An assessment of the Porter hypothesis. Cahiers de recherche GREEN 05-05, Laval University (2005)
4. Barbera A.J., and McConnel V.D. The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: direct and indirect effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18 (1990) 50-65
5. Boyd G., and McClelland J. The impact of environmental constraints on productivity improvement in integrated paper plants. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38 2 (1999) 121-142
6. Bréchet Th., and Jouvet P.-A. Environmental innovation and the cost of pollution abatement revisited. Ecological Economics 65 2 (2008) 262-265
7. Färe R., Grosskopf G., Lovell K., and Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable. Review of Economics and Statistics 71 1 (1989) 90-98
8. Farrell M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120 (1957) 253-281
9. Feichtinger G., Hartl R.F., Kort P.M., and Veliov V.M. Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: effects of learning and technological progress. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 2 (2005) 434-446
10. IPCC. Climate Change-Mitigation (2001), Cambridge University Press
11. Isaksson L.H. Abatement costs in response to the Swedish charge on nitrogen oxide emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2005) 102-120
12. Jaffe A.B., Peterson S.R., Portney P.R., and Stavins R.N. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?. Journal of Economic Literature XXXIII (1995) 132-163
13. Jouvet P.-A., Michel Ph., and Rotillon G. Optimal growth with pollution: how to use pollution permits?. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 29 9 (2005) 1597-1609
14. Mohr R.D. Technical change, external economies, and the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 1 (2002) 158-168
15. OECD. Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy-Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in Policy Mixes (2003), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris
16. Palmer K., Oates W.E., and Portney P.R. Tightening the environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 4 (1995) 119-132
17. Porter M.E., and van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 4 (1995) 97-118
18. Sorrel S., O, Malley E., Schleich J., and Scott S. The Economics of Energy Efficiency (2004), Edward Elgar
19. Stoft S.E. The economics of Conserved-Energy 'Supply' curves. The Energy Journal 16 4 (1995) 109-137
20. Stokey N.L. Are there limits to growth?. International Economic Review 39 (1998) 1-31
21. Wagner M. The Porter hypothesis revisited: a literature review of theoretical and empirical tests. Center for Sustainable Management (2004), Universitat Luneburg. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0407014.html (available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0407014.html)
22. Worcester D.A. Pecuniary and technological externality, factor rents, and social costs. American Economic Review 59 (1969) 873-885
23. Xepapadeas A., and de Zeeuw A. Environmental policy and competitiveness: the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37 2 (1999) 165-182