Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab

Baranzini, Andrea, Borzykowski, Nicolas and Carattini, Stefano (2018) Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab. Journal of Forest Economics, 32. pp. 1-12. ISSN 1104-6899

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (601kB) | Preview
Identification Number: 10.1016/j.jfe.2018.02.004

Abstract

Following the entry into force of the Paris Agreement in November 2016, governments around the world are now expected to turn their nationally determined contributions into concrete climate policies. Given the global public good nature of climate change mitigation and the important cross-country differences in marginal abatement costs, distributing mitigation efforts across countries could substantially lower the overall cost of implementing climate policy. However, abating emissions abroad instead of domestically may face important political and popular resistance. We ran a lab experiment with more than 300 participants and asked them to choose between a domestic and an international reforestation project. We tested the effect of three informational treatments on the allocation of participants’ endowment between the domestic and the international project. The treatments consisted in: (1) making more salient the cost-effectiveness gains associated with offsetting carbon abroad; (2) providing guarantees on the reliability of reforestation programmes; (3) stressing local ancillary benefits associated with domestic offset projects. We found that stressing the cost-effectiveness of the reforestation programme abroad did increase its support, the economic argument in favour of offsetting abroad being otherwise overlooked by participants. We relate this finding to the recent literature on the drivers of public support for climate policies, generally pointing to a gap between people's preferences and economists’ prescriptions.

Item Type: Article
Official URL: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-fores...
Additional Information: © 2018 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea © CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Divisions: Grantham Research Institute
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
S Agriculture > SD Forestry
JEL classification: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q23 - Forestry
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy
Sets: Research centres and groups > Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Collections > Economists Online
Date Deposited: 02 May 2018 10:30
Last Modified: 20 Nov 2019 05:35
Projects: P2SKP1 165028
Funders: Swiss National Science Foundation
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/87732

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics