A CLIMATE POLICY GAP Swedes are willing to pay more for their air - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A CLIMATE POLICY GAP Swedes are willing to pay more for their air travel emissions than they have to Jonas Sonnenschein, IIIEE, Lund University, jonas.sonnenschein@iiiee.lu.se BEHAVE 2018, September 7 iiiee THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
1
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
Jonas Sonnenschein, IIIEE, Lund University, jonas.sonnenschein@iiiee.lu.se BEHAVE 2018, September 7
2
NASA Earth Observatory picture of the day for July 21, 2018 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/92454/scarcely-seen-scandinavian-fires
3
What people ate willing to pay for their CO2 emissions, varies: – Viscusi & Zeckhauser (2006): 67 EUR/t (petrol, SP) – Brouwer et al. (2008): 41 EUR/t (air travel, SP) – Choi & Ritchie (2014): 14 EUR/t (air travel, SP) – Löschel et al. (2013): 12 EUR/t (EUA offset, RP) – Diederich & Göschel (2014): 6 EUR/t (EUA offset, RP)
4
– The low cost hypothesis, i.e. higher WTP for env’l goods in a low cost context
(Blasch & Farsi, 2014)
– Higher WTP for coercive as opposed to voluntary payment mechanisms
(Wiser, 2007)
– General (non-)WTP is potentially driven by other factors than specific WTP
(Krishnamurthy & Kriström, 2017)
5
– What is (approximately) Swedes’ WTP for the mitigation of their air travel emission? – Is there a difference in WTP between voluntary offsets and coercive carbon pricing instruments? – Is there a difference in WTP between a low-cost and a high-cost context? – What are the factors influencing general and specific WTP?
6
– contingent valuation online survey (n = 500) in January 2017 – from a representative, random sample of 1 507 Swedish adults
7
Table 1: Socio-demographic overview of population and study respondents
Population (age 25-74) Respondents Number 6 200 688 500 Share of women 0.49 0.49 Age (mean) 48.48 50.54 Age (median) 48 51 People per household (mean) 2.2* 2.45 Median income per month (before tax) 29 100** 28 500 * mean for the whole Swedish population ** assuming a tax rate of 30%; for the age group 25 to 64
8
– contingent valuation online survey (n = 500) in January 2017 – from a representative, random sample of 1 507 Swedish adults – repeated elicitation of WTP with different payment vehicles (in random order) – same bids levels were used for different PVs
9
PV Bid # EUA (SEK/ ton) Flight surcharge (SEK/ 1750km) Flight surcharge (SEK/ 9000km) 1 100 30 120 2 200 60 240 3 400 120 480 4 600 180 720 5 800 240 960 6 1000 300 1200
10
11
12
13
– contingent valuation online survey (n = 500) in January 2017 – from a representative, random sample of 1 507 Swedish adults – repeated elicitation of WTP with different payment vehicles (in random order) – same bids levels were used for different PVs – sensitivity analysis for conversion factors (i.e. from pkm to tCO2)
14
50 100 150 200 250
This study (short distance) ICAO (ARN - BCN) ICAO (MMX - ARN - KRN) Ottelin et al., 2014 (short distance) Andersen Resare, 2015 (average for SAS) Åkerman, 2012 (average for Sweden in CO2e) This study (long distance) ICAO (ARN - HKT) ICAO (ARN - LAX) Ottelin et al., 2014 (long distance)
in gCO2 per pkm
15
– contingent valuation online survey (n = 500) in January 2017 – from a representative, random sample of 1 507 Swedish adults – repeated elicitation of WTP with different payment vehicles (in random order) – same bids levels were used for different PVs – sensitivity analysis for conversion factors (i.e. from pkm to tCO2) – (small opinion poll about policy preferences)
16
– Independent variables
» socio-demographic characteristics (female, income, education), » flight frequency (frequentfly) » political view (leftpolview) » sense of responsibility for one’s emissions (responsible) » preference for earmarking (earmark)
– Logit (general WTP) – Heckman selection model (general & specific WTP)
17
18
19
20
(1) Logit (2) Heckman Probit (a+b) a) OLS b) OLS WTPsurcharge WTPsurcharge WTPair short WTPair long female 0.451 * 0.250 *
**
** (0.237) (0.137) (64.01) (54.43) income 0.109 0.066 25.09 17.75 (0.094) (0.054) (23.68) (20.07) education 0.042 0.028 30.61 24.01 (0.111) (0.064) (28.28) (23.91) frequentfly
***
*** 96.61 130.63 * (0.244) (0.143) (85.67) (72.12) leftpolview 0.916 *** 0.509 *** (0.267) (0.147) responsible 0.840 *** 0.481 ***
(0.299) (0.166) (81.81) (69.51) earmark 1.162 *** 0.696 ***
(0.241) (0.144) (116.16) (97.78) constant
815.12 *** 575.50 *** (0.464) (0.275) (254.86) (215.39) λ
*
** (268.92) (225.49) Wald χ2 (6) 12.95 ** 16.51 ** Pseudo R2 0.12 χ2 (7) 67.51 ***
21
17% 30% 53% 48% 41% 10% Fuel surcharge EUA offset Air ticket surcharge best option worst option
22
16% 10% 17% 19% 38% 8% 15% 22% 36% 19% 35% 11% 22% 13% 19% 23% 45% 15% 12% 4% Government Air travelers International organizations Manufacturers of air planes Airlines highest responsibility lowest responsibility
23
3% 5% 38% 54% 1% 12% 49% 38% 40% 44% 9% 7% 56% 39% 4% 1% General budget Revenue neutral recycling Mitigate climate change Environmentally friendly transport alternatives best use worst use
24
– absolute WTP levels are highly context-specific – the use of multiple payment vehicles/ framings can help to make WTP values more robust – in the field of air travel emissions, assumptions about carbon intensity heavily influence WTP results
25
– an air ticket tax promises to be a feasible tool to generate revenues – its potential steering effect is lower for low cost contexts (e.g. short-distance flights) – consistency regarding the tax base and its revenue use increases public acceptability of air ticket taxes – insights about the personal drivers behind WTP for emissions reductions from air travel can inform targeting of policy interventions
26
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
Jonas Sonnenschein, IIIEE, Lund University, jonas.sonnenschein@iiiee.lu.se BEHAVE 2018, September 7
27
Variable (name) Codes and explanation Mean SD Age (age) 25-74 (number in years) 50.54 14.11 Gender (female) 0 (male or other), 1 (female) 0.49 0.50 Education (education) 1 (elementary school) to 5 (licentiate or PhD) 3.05 1.05 Household size (hhsize) 1 (1 person lives in household) to 6 (more than 5 people) 2.45 1.22 Monthly income before tax (income) 1 (< 10 000 SEK), 2 (10 000 to 19 999 SEK) to 8 (> 70 000 SEK) 3.45 1.34 Political view (polview) 1 (clearly to the left) to 5 (clearly to the right); 38 respondents did not answer this question n = 462) 3.08 1.23 Left political view (leftpolview) 1 (clearly to the left or left), 0 (right-leaning, neither left nor right, not shared) 0.34 0.47 Carbon footprint (footprint) 1 (below average), 2 (average), 3 (above average) 1.91 0.67 High carbon footprint (highfootprint) 1 (footprint above average), 0 (footprint below average or average) 0.18 0.39 Flight frequency (fly) 1 (never), 2 (up to one return-trip per year), 3 (several trips per year) 2.10 0.70 Frequent flier (frequentfly) 1 (fly several times per year), 0 (fly 1 or less times per year) 0.30 0.46 Responsible (responsible) 1 (ranked oneself 1st or 2nd among five actors potentially responsible for reducing emissions), 0 (ranked oneself 3rd, 4th or 5th) 0.25 0.43 Earmark (earmark) 1 (preferred revenue use is for climate mitigation or sustainable transport), 0 (preferred use is for general budget or revenue recycling) 0.77 0.42 Dependent variables General WTP for surcharge (WTPsurcharge) 1 (positive WTP in principle), 0 (no WTP) 0.75 0.43 General WTP for EUA
1 (positive WTP in principle), 0 (no WTP) 0.29 0.45
air surcharge (WTPair short) 0 (WTPsurcharge = 0 or lowest bid was rejected), 10 – 417 (the respective WTP value in EUR/t CO2) 52 54
air surcharge (WTPair long) 0 (WTPsurcharge = 0 or lowest bid was rejected), 10 – 417 (the respective WTP value in EUR/t CO2) 31 39
EUAs (WTPeua) 0 (WTPoffset = 0 or lowest bid was rejected), 10 – 417 (the respective WTP value in EUR/t CO2) 12 30
28
29
30
31
32