, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 223–235 | Cite as

Climate Policy to Defeat the Green Paradox

  • Stefan Fölster
  • Johan Nyström


Carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. This discouraging development may partly be blamed on accelerating world growth and on lags in policy instruments. However, it also raises serious question concerning whether policies to reduce CO2 emissions are as effective as generally assumed. In recent years, a considerable number of studies have identified various feedback mechanisms of climate policies that often erode, and occasionally reinforce, their effectiveness. These studies generally focus on a few feedback mechanisms at a time, without capturing the entire effect. Partial accounting of policy feedbacks is common in many climate scenarios. The IPCC, for example, only accounts for direct leakage and rebound effects. This article attempts to map the aggregate effects of different types of climate policy feedback mechanisms in a cohesive framework. Controlling feedback effects is essential if the policy measures are to make any difference on a global level. A general conclusion is that aggregate policy feedback mechanisms tend to make current climate policies much less effective than is generally assumed. In fact, various policy measures involve a definite risk of ‘backfiring’ and actually increasing CO2 emissions. This risk is particularly pronounced once effects of climate policies on the pace of innovation in climate technology are considered. To stand any chance of controlling carbon emissions, it is imperative that feedback mechanisms are integrated into emission scenarios, targets for emission reduction and implementation of climate policy. In many cases, this will reduce the scope for subsidies to renewable energy sources, but increase the scope for other measures such as schemes to return carbon dioxide to the ground and to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases from wetlands and oceans. A framework that incorporates policy feedback effects necessitates rethinking the design of the national and regional emission targets. This leads us to a new way of formulating emission targets that include feedback effects, the global impact target. Once the full climate policy feedback mechanisms are accounted for, there are probably only three main routes in climate policy that stand a chance of mitigating global warming: (a) returning carbon to the ground, (b) technological leaps in zero-emission energy technology that make it profitable to leave much carbon in the ground even in Annex II countries and (c) international agreements that make it more profitable to leave carbon in the ground or in forests.


Rebound effect Green paradox Climate policy 


  1. Allan, G., N. Hanley, P. McGregor, J.K. Swales, and K. Turner. 2007. The impact of increased efficiency in the industrial use of energy: A computable general equilibrium analysis for the United Kingdom. Energy Economics 29(4): 779–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelsen, A. 2008. Moving ahead with REDD. Issues, options and implications. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  3. Anson, S., and K. Tuner. 2009. Rebound and disinvestment effects in oil consumption and supply resulting from an increase in energy efficiency in the Scottish commercial transport sector. Strathclyde Discussion Papers in Economics No. 09-01.Google Scholar
  4. Babiker, M.H. 2005. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. Journal of International Economics 65: 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, T., A. Dagoumas, and J. Rubin. 2009. The macroeconomic rebound effect and the world economy. Journal Energy Efficiency 2(4): 411–427.Google Scholar
  6. Bentzen, J. 2004. Estimating the rebound effect in US manufacturing energy consumption. Energy Economics 26: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binswanger, M. 2001. Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics 36: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair, R.D., D. Kaserman, and R.C. Tepel. 1984. The impact of improved mileage on gasoline consumption. Economic Inquiry 22: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottazzi, L., D.R. Marco, and T. Hellmann. 2004. The changing face of the European venture capital industry: Facts and analysis. Journal of Private Equity 8(1).Google Scholar
  10. Brännlund, R. 2007. Miljöpolitik utan kostnader? En kritisk granskning av Porterhypotesen. Expertgruppen för miljöstudier 2Google Scholar
  11. Brännlund, R., T. Ghalwash, and J. Nordstrom. 2007. Increased energy efficiency and the rebound effect: Effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Economics 29: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., A. Getachew, G. Peters, and A. Wadeskog. 2007. Koldioxidutsläpp till följd av Sveriges import och konsumtion—beräkningar med olika metoder. KTH, TRITA-IM 11.Google Scholar
  13. CE Delft. 2008. Impacts on competitiveness from EU ETS.Google Scholar
  14. Climate Strategies. 2007. Differentiation and dynamics of EU ETS industrial competitiveness impacts.Google Scholar
  15. Copenhagen Economics. 2009. Klimatavtal—Jobb och utsläpp.Google Scholar
  16. Damm, D.L., and A.G. Fedorov. 2008. Conceptual study of distributed CO2 capture and the sustainable carbon economy. Energy Conversion and Management 49(6).Google Scholar
  17. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Danish solutions to global environmental challenges.Google Scholar
  18. Dealflower. 2003. Varför investerar inte det svenska riskkapitalet i förnyelsebar och klimateffektiv energiteknik? konsultrapport beställd av NUTEK.Google Scholar
  19. Dimitropolous, J. 2007. Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge. Energy Policy 35: 6354–6363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dinan, T.M. 1987. An analysis of the impact of residential retrofit on indoor temperature choice. Oak Ridge: Oake Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  21. Dubin, J.M., A.K. Miedema, and R.V. Chandran. 1986. Price effects of energy-efficient technologies: A study of residential demand for heating and cooling. Rand Journal of Economics 17: 310–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. EC. 2001. Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection. 2001/C 37/03.Google Scholar
  23. EC. 2007. Report of the environmental technologies action plan (2005–2006). COM/2007/0162 final.Google Scholar
  24. EC. 2008a. Annex to the impact assessment: Package implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy 2020.Google Scholar
  25. EC. 2008b. Commission services paper on energy insensitive industries exposed to significant risk of carbon leakage.Google Scholar
  26. Eichner, Thomas, and Pethig, Rüdinger. 2009. Carbon leakage, the green paradox and perfect future markets. CESIFO Working Paper No. 2542, February 2009.Google Scholar
  27. EmployRES. 2009. The impact of renewable energy policy on economic growth and employment in the European Union. Final report prepared for the European Commission, DG Energy and Transport.Google Scholar
  28. Ernst, J., and L.L.P. Young. 2008. Transformation Cleantech: Enabling the business response to climate change.Google Scholar
  29. Felder, S., and T.F. Rutherford. 1993. Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: The consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(2): 162–176.Google Scholar
  30. Fouquet, R., and P. Pearson. 2006. Seven centuries of energy services: The price and use of light in the United Kingdom (1300–2000). International Association for Energy Economics 27(1): 138–178.Google Scholar
  31. Fowles, M. 2007. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass & Bioenergy 31(6): 426–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frondel, M., J. Peters, and C. Vance. 2007. Identifying the rebound—Evidence from a German household panel. Ruhr Economic Paper No. 32.Google Scholar
  33. Gately, D. 1990. The US demand for highway travel and motor fuel. Energy Journal 11: 59–73.Google Scholar
  34. Gerlagh, R.O., and O. Kuik. 2007. Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers, Nota di Lavoaro 33. Milano: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  35. Glomsrod, S., and W. Taojuan. 2005. Coal cleaning: A viable strategy for reduced carbon emissions and improved environment in China? Energy Policy 33: 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gompers, P., and J. Lerner. 2001. The venture capital revolution. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(2):145–168.Google Scholar
  37. Greene, D.L. 1992. Vehicle use and fuel economy: How big is the rebound effect? Energy Journal 13: 117–143.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, D.L., J. Kahn, and R. Gibson. 1999. Fuel economy rebound effect for US household’s vehicles. Energy Journal 20: 1–32.Google Scholar
  39. Greening, L., D. Greene, and C. Difiglio. 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption—The rebound effect. A survey. Energy Policy 28: 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hanley, N., P. McGregor, J.K. Swales, and K. Turner. 2008. Do increases in resource productivity improve environmental quality and sustainability? Ecological Economics 68(3): 692–709.Google Scholar
  41. Haughton, J., and S. Sarker. 1996. Gasoline tax as a corrective tax: estimates for the United Stated, 1970–1991. The Energy Journal 17: 103–126.Google Scholar
  42. Hellman, T., and M. Puri. 2002. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance 57(1): 169–197.Google Scholar
  43. Hirst, E. 1987. Changes in indoor after retrofit based on electricity billing and weather data. Energy System Policy 10: 1–20.Google Scholar
  44. Ho, M.S., R. Morgenstern, and J.S. Shih. 2008. Impact of carbon price policies on U.S. industry. RFF Discussion Paper No. 08-37.Google Scholar
  45. Hoel, M., and S. Kverndokk. 1996. Depletion of fossil fuels and the impacts of global warming. Resource and Energy Economics 18: 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holmgren, K., E. Eriksson, O. Olsson, M. Olsson, B. Hillring, and M. Parikka. 2007. Biobränsle och klimatneutralitet-systemanalys av produktion och användning. Elforsk rapport 07:35. Elforsk.Google Scholar
  47. IEA. 2005. Industrial competitiveness under the European emissions trading scheme.Google Scholar
  48. International Council for Science. 2009. Biofuels: Environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Issued April 2, 2009.Google Scholar
  49. IPCC. 2007. The physical science basis working group I. The Fourth Assessment Report.Google Scholar
  50. ITPS. 2008. Svensk miljöteknik—En kartläggning av aktörer, marknader och konkurrenter.Google Scholar
  51. Kågesson, P. 2009. Miljöbil på villovägar: hur klarar Sverige EU:s krav på snåla fordon och förnybara drivmedel? SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  52. Khazzoom, J.D. 1986. An econometric model integrating conservation measures in the residential demand for electricity. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  53. Laitner, J.A. 2000. Energy efficiency: Rebounding to a sound analytical perspective. Energy Policy 28: 471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leung, P.S., and M.H. Vesenka. 1987. Forecasting a state-specific demand for highways fuels. Energy System Policy 10: 167–188.Google Scholar
  55. Lindström, G., and C. Olofsson. 1998. Teknikbaserade företag i tidig utvecklingsfas, Institute for Technology and Management.Google Scholar
  56. Marschinski, R., M. Jakob, and O. Edenhofer. 2008. Analysis of carbon leakage in an extended Ricardo-Viner model. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.Google Scholar
  57. Mayo, J.W., and J.E. Mathis. 1988. The effectiveness of mandatory fuel efficiency standards of reducing demand for gasoline. Applied Economics 20: 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McKinsey. 2006. Report on international competitiveness.Google Scholar
  59. Mizobuchi, K. 2008. An empirical study on the rebound effect considering capital costs. Energy Economics 30: 2486–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nutek. 2007. Investera i CleanTech 2007.Google Scholar
  61. OECD. 2008. The economics of climate change mitigation: Policies and options for the future.Google Scholar
  62. Paltsev, S.V. 2001. The Kyoto Protocol: Regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage. The Energy Journal 22: 53–79.Google Scholar
  63. Popp, D. 2006. R&D subsidies and climate policy: Is there a “free lunch”? Climate Change 77: 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Profu. 2008. Nordic perspectives on the EU goals relating to CO2, renewable energy and energy efficiency.Google Scholar
  65. Roy, J. 2000. The rebound effect: Some empirical evidence for India. Energy Policy 28: 433–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rubio, S., and L. Esriche. 2001. Strategic Pigouvian taxation, stock externalities and polluting nonrenewable resources. Journal of Public Ecoomics 79: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rutledge, D. 2007. The coal question and climate change. The Oil Drum,
  68. Saunders, H.D. 2008. Fuel conserving (and using) production functions. Energy Economics 5: 2184–2235.Google Scholar
  69. Schurr, S.H. 1985. Energy conservation and productivity growth: Can we have both? Energy Policy 13(2): 32–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. SIKA. 2007. Bantrafik 2006.Google Scholar
  71. Sinn, H.-W. 2007. Public policies against global warming. NBER Working Paper No. 13454.Google Scholar
  72. Sinn, H.-W. 2008. Public policies against global warming. International Tax and Public Finance 15: 360–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smale, R., M. Hartley, C. Hepburn, J. Ward, and M. Grubb. 2006. The impact of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices. Climate Policy 6(1): 31–48.Google Scholar
  74. Sorrell, S., J. Dimitropoulos, and M. Sommerville. 2009. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review. Energy Policy 37(4): 1356–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stern, N. 2006. The economics of climate change: The Stern review.
  76. Svensk Energi. 2008. Elåret 2006.Google Scholar
  77. Swentec. 2008. Svenska strategier och initiativ för främjande av miljöteknik.Google Scholar
  78. Turner, K. 2009. Negative rebound and disinvestment effects in response to an improvement in energy efficiency in the UK economy. Energy Economics 31(5): 648–666.Google Scholar
  79. Walker, I.O., and F. Wirl. 1993. Asymmetric energy demand due to endogenous efficiencies: An empirical investigation of the transport sector. Energy Journal 14: 183–205.Google Scholar
  80. Wei, T. 2009. A general equilibrium view of global rebound effects. CICERO Working Paper No. 2009:02.Google Scholar
  81. Weinblatt, H. 1989. The FHWA/Faucett VMT forecasting model. Bethesda, MA: Jack Faucett Associates.Google Scholar
  82. Weitzman, M.L. 1974. Prices vs. Quantities. Review of Economic Studies 41: 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Svenskt NäringslivStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Pöyry Management Consulting (Sweden) ABStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations