成本效益在多部门气候投资计划中的作用:瑞典气候飞跃

Abenezer Zeleke Aklilu , Rebecca Swärd , Katarina Elofsson
{"title":"成本效益在多部门气候投资计划中的作用:瑞典气候飞跃","authors":"Abenezer Zeleke Aklilu ,&nbsp;Rebecca Swärd ,&nbsp;Katarina Elofsson","doi":"10.1016/j.jclimf.2024.100051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To increase the speed of implementation of carbon mitigation technologies, many countries set up publicly funded investment programs, where private and/or public entities can apply for support. These schemes are often criticized for not being cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Swedish Climate Leap Program, which differs from most other programs through the multisector approach. We examine determinants of project approval and evaluate the heterogeneity in implicit carbon pricing across sectors. Several econometric methods are used to assess equality in carbon pricing. Results show that although the cost-effectiveness ratio plays an important role in project approval, carbon pricing differs significantly across project types. Project guidelines favor charging stations and transport measures that aid in adopting new technology and reaching economies of scale. However, the preference for transport measures is not reflected in the carbon pricing while instead energy conversion measures have a higher probability of being funded given the cost-effectiveness of the investment. Funding decisions favor densely populated municipalities, which could be motivated for investments in public goods, but is questionable for transport and housing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Climate Finance","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of cost-effectiveness in multisector climate investment programs: The Swedish Climate Leap\",\"authors\":\"Abenezer Zeleke Aklilu ,&nbsp;Rebecca Swärd ,&nbsp;Katarina Elofsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclimf.2024.100051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>To increase the speed of implementation of carbon mitigation technologies, many countries set up publicly funded investment programs, where private and/or public entities can apply for support. These schemes are often criticized for not being cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Swedish Climate Leap Program, which differs from most other programs through the multisector approach. We examine determinants of project approval and evaluate the heterogeneity in implicit carbon pricing across sectors. Several econometric methods are used to assess equality in carbon pricing. Results show that although the cost-effectiveness ratio plays an important role in project approval, carbon pricing differs significantly across project types. Project guidelines favor charging stations and transport measures that aid in adopting new technology and reaching economies of scale. However, the preference for transport measures is not reflected in the carbon pricing while instead energy conversion measures have a higher probability of being funded given the cost-effectiveness of the investment. Funding decisions favor densely populated municipalities, which could be motivated for investments in public goods, but is questionable for transport and housing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Climate Finance\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100051\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Climate Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294972802400021X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Climate Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294972802400021X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了加快碳减排技术的实施速度,许多国家制定了公共资助的投资计划,私人和/或公共实体可以申请支持。这些计划常常被批评为不符合成本效益。本研究旨在对瑞典气候飞跃计划进行评估,该计划通过多部门方法与其他大多数计划有所不同。我们研究了项目批准的决定因素,并评估了各部门隐含碳定价的异质性。我们使用了多种计量经济学方法来评估碳定价的平等性。结果表明,尽管成本效益比在项目审批中发挥着重要作用,但不同类型的项目在碳定价方面存在显著差异。项目指南倾向于采用有助于采用新技术和实现规模经济的充电站和运输措施。然而,碳定价并没有反映出对交通措施的偏好,相反,考虑到投资的成本效益,能源转换措施获得资助的可能性更高。供资决定有利于人口稠密的城市,这可能是公共产品投资的动机,但在交通和住房方面则值得商榷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of cost-effectiveness in multisector climate investment programs: The Swedish Climate Leap
To increase the speed of implementation of carbon mitigation technologies, many countries set up publicly funded investment programs, where private and/or public entities can apply for support. These schemes are often criticized for not being cost-effective. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Swedish Climate Leap Program, which differs from most other programs through the multisector approach. We examine determinants of project approval and evaluate the heterogeneity in implicit carbon pricing across sectors. Several econometric methods are used to assess equality in carbon pricing. Results show that although the cost-effectiveness ratio plays an important role in project approval, carbon pricing differs significantly across project types. Project guidelines favor charging stations and transport measures that aid in adopting new technology and reaching economies of scale. However, the preference for transport measures is not reflected in the carbon pricing while instead energy conversion measures have a higher probability of being funded given the cost-effectiveness of the investment. Funding decisions favor densely populated municipalities, which could be motivated for investments in public goods, but is questionable for transport and housing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信