Environmental harm of hidden subsidies: Global warming and acidification

Ambio

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 339-341

  Van Beers, Cees ^a   Van Den Bergh, Jeroen C J M ^b  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACIDIFICATION; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CARBON DIOXIDE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE GAS; KYOTO PROTOCOL; STATE ROLE; SUBSIDY SYSTEM; TYPOLOGY;

NETHERLANDS;

CARBON DIOXIDE;

AGRICULTURE; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HEALTH; HUMAN; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; POLLUTION; RISK FACTOR; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT;

AGRICULTURE; CARBON DIOXIDE; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; GLOBAL HEALTH; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; PRIVATE SECTOR; PUBLIC POLICY; PUBLIC SECTOR; RISK FACTORS; TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 77649268101     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1579/08-A-616.1     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Myers, N. 1998. Lifting the veil on perverse subsidies. Nature 392, 327-328.
2. James, A.N., Gaston, K.J. and Balmford, A. 1999. Balancing the Earth's accounts. Nature 401, 323-324.
3. Perry, I. 1998. A second-best analysis of environmental subsidies. Int. Tax Public Financ. 5, 153.
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1999. Improving the Environment through Reducing Subsidies (3 volumes). OECD, Paris.
5. van Beers, C. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. 2001. Perseverance of perverse subsidies and their impact on trade and environment. Ecol. Econ. 36, 475-486.
6. van Beers, C. and de Moor, A. 2001. Public Subsidies and Policy Failures. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
7. van Beers, C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., de Moor, A. and Oosterhuis, F.H. 2007. Determining the environmental effects of indirect subsidies: Integrated method and application to the Netherlands. Appl. Econ. 39, 2465-2482.
8. van Beers, C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., de Moor, A. and Oosterhuis, F. 2002. Environmental Impact of Indirect Subsidies. Development and Application of a Policy Oriented Method. Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, December 2002. (http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/ 1871/10427/1/f18.pdf)
9. de Moor, A. and Calamai, P. 1997. Perverse Subsidies. Report for the Earth Council, Costa Rica.
10. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1995. Adjustment in OECD Agriculture: Issues and Policy Responses. OECD, Paris.
11. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. 1991. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Persp. 5, 193-206.
12. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). 2007. Reforming Environmentally Harmful Subsidies. Final report to the European Commission's DG Environment, March 2007.
13. World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008. World Bank, Washington, DC, 97 pp.
14. European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2004. Energy Subsidies in the European Union: A Brief Overview. EEA Technical report no. 1/2004. EEA, Copenhagen.
15. Koplow, D. 2004. Federal Subsidies to Energy in 2003 - A First Look. Policy paper prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy, 30 July 2004.
16. Koplow, D. 2007. Subsidies in the US energy sector: magnitude, causes and options for reform. In: Subsidies and Sustainable Development: Political Economy Aspects. OECD, Paris.
17. EEA. 2007. Size, Structure and Distribution of Transport Subsidies in Europe. EEA Technical report no. 3/2007. EEA, Copenhagen.
18. VNCI. 2001. Guideline Environmental Performance Indicators for the Chemical Industry: The EPI-method (version 1.1). Report of working group on environmental performance indicators, Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Planning and Environment, The Hague.
19. Arthur, B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 99, 116-131.
20. First submitted 11 November 2008. Accepted for publication 10 March 2009.