GHG Registries: Participation and Performance Under the Canadian Voluntary Climate Challenge Program

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 521-548

  Brouhle, Keith ^a   Harrington, Donna Ramirez ^b  

^a GRINNELL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate change registry; Dynamic panel probit; Information disclosure; Voluntary program

Indexed keywords

GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES; DYNAMIC PANELS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY; GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING; INFORMATION DISCLOSURE; INFORMATION PROVISION; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE; VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GREENHOUSE GAS; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TOXIC SUBSTANCE; VOLUNTARY APPROACH;

CANADA;

EID: 78149499242     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9391-4     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ando A (1999) Waiting to be protected under the endangered species act: the political economy of regulatory delay. J Law Econ 42(1): 29-60.
2. Arimura T, Hibiki A, Katayama H (2008) Is a voluntary approach an effective environmental policy instrument? A case for environmental management systems. J Environ Econ Manage 55(3): 281-295.
3. Arora S, Cason T (1996) Why do firms volunteer to exceed environmental regulations? Understanding participation in EPA's 33/50 program. Land Econ 72(4): 413-432.
4. Bramley M (2002) The case for Kyoto: the failure of voluntary corporate action. Prepared by the Pembina Institute. http://www. pembina. org/pub/140. Cited 14 Sep 2008.
5. Brouhle K, Harrington D (2008) Firm strategy and the Canadian voluntary climate challenge and registry (VCR). Bus Strategy Environ 18(6): 360-379.
6. Canadian Standards Association (2005) Canadian challenge registry guide. Version 4.0.
7. Canadian Standards Association (2008) Canada's climate change voluntary challenge & registry inc. http://www. ghgregistries. ca/challenge/index_e. cfm. Cited 14 Sep 2008.
8. Dasgupta S, Hettige H, Wheeler D (2000) What improves environmental compliance? Evidence from Mexican industry. J Environ Econ Manage 39(1): 39-66.
9. Deaton BJ, Lintner AM, Harrington DR (2008) Evaluating an environmental right: information disclosure, public comment, and government decision making in Ontario. Can J Agric Econ 56(3): 227-294.
10. DeCanio S, Watkins W (1998) Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter. Rev Econ Stat 80(1): 95-107.
11. Energy Information Administration (2004) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases 2004. Report #: DOE/EIA-0608.
12. Environment Canada (2008a) Facility GHG reporting. http://www. ec. gc. ca/pdb/ghg/facility_e. cfm. Cited 14 Sep 2008.
13. Environment Canada (2008b) Priority substances list 1. http://www. ec. gc. ca/ceparegistry/subs_list/PSL1. cfm. Cited 14 Sept 2008.
14. Fickling M (2009) US and Canadian climate legislation by state and province. Peterson Institute for International Economics http://www. iie. com/publications/papers/paper. cfm?ResearchID=1057. Cited 4 Mar 2010.
15. Goldman B, Fitton L (1994) Toxic wastes and race revisited: an update Of 1987 report on the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of communities with hazardous waste sites. United Church of Christ, Center for Policy Alternatives.
16. Government of Canada (2002) Climate change plan for Canada. ISBN En56-183/2002E. http://www. climatechange. gc. ca. Cited 1 Mar 2007.
17. Government of Canada (2005) Project green: moving forward on climate change: a plan for honouring our Kyoto commitment.
18. Hamilton J (1995) Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the toxics releases data. J Environ Econ Manage 28(1): 98-113.
19. Hamilton J (2005) Regulation through revelation: the origin, politics, and impacts of the toxics release inventory program. Cambridge University Press, New York.
20. Harrison K, Antweiler W (2003) Incentives for pollution abatement: regulation, regulatory threats and non-governmental pressures. J Policy Anal Manage 22(3): 361-382.
21. Harrison K, Antweiler W (2007) Canada's voluntary ARET program: limited success despite industry cosponsorship. J Policy Anal Manage 26(4): 755-773.
22. Hornung R (1999) The VCR doesn't Work. In: Gibson R (ed) Voluntary initiatives: the new politics of corporate greening. Broadview Press.
23. Khanna M, Brouhle K (2009) The effectiveness of voluntary environmental initiatives. In: Delmas M, Young O (eds) Governance for the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Khanna M, Damon L (1999) EPA's voluntary 33/50 program: impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. J Environ Econ Manage 37(1): 1-25.
25. Khanna M, Quimio W, Bojilova D (1998) Toxics release information: a policy tool for environmental protection. J Environ Econ Manage 36(3): 243-266.
26. Khanna M, Ramirez D (2004) Effectiveness of voluntary approaches: implications for climate change mitigation. In: Baranzini A, Thalmann P (eds) Voluntary approaches in climate policy. Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton.
27. Laplante B, Lanoie P (1994) The market response to environmental incidents in Canada: a theoretical and empirical analysis. South Econ J 60(3): 657-672.
28. Lyon T, Kim E-H (2007) Greenhouse gas reductions or greenwash? The DOE's 1605b program? SSRN working paper no. 981730. Michigan.
29. Morgenstern R, Pizer W, Shih J (2007) Evaluating voluntary U. S. climate programs: the case of climate wise. In: Morgenstern R, Pizer W (eds) Reality check: the nature and performance of voluntary environmental programs in the United States, Europe, and Japan. RFF Press, Washington.
30. Murphy R, Jaccard M (2003) The voluntary approach to GHG reduction: a case study of BC hydro. Energy Stud Rev 11(2): 131-151.
31. OECD: (1996) Main economic indicators, sources and definitions. OECD, Paris.
32. Stilborn J (2003) Canadian intergovernmental relations and the Kyoto protocol: what happened, what didn't? Paper presented at CPSA conference Challenges to Canadian Federalism, 30 May 2003.
33. Takahashi T, Nakamura M, van Kooten G, Vertinsky G (2001) Rising to the Kyoto challenge: is the response of Canadian industry adequate?. J Environ Manage 63: 149-161.
34. Tietenberg T (1998) Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environ Resour Econ 11(3-4): 587-602.
35. US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) How are the toxics release inventory data used? Government, business, academic and citizen uses. Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Washington, DC.
36. Valiente M (2002) Legal foundations of Canadian environmental policy: underlining our values in a shifting landscape. In: VanNijnatten D, Boardman R (eds) Canadian environmental policy: context and cases. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
37. Voluntary Climate and Challenge Registry (2007) http://www. ghgregistries. ca/challenge/index_e. cfm. Cited 1 Aug 2007.
38. Videras J, Alberini A (2000) The appeal of voluntary environmental programs: which firms participate and why?. Contemp Econ Policy 18(4): 449-461.
39. Welch E, Mazur A, Bretschneider S (2000) Voluntary behavior by electric utilities: levels of adoption and contribution of the climate challenge program to the reduction of carbon dioxide. J Policy Anal Manage 19(3): 407-425.
40. Wooldridge J (1997) Multiplicative panel data models without the strict exogeneity assumption. Econom Theory 13: 667-678.
41. Wooldridge J (2001) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.
42. Wooldridge J (2005) Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. J Appl Econ 20(1): 39-54.
43. Wu J, Babcock B (1999) The relative efficiency of voluntary vs mandatory environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manage 38(2): 158-175.