Abstract Environmental economists might recommend a cap-and-trade program as a good way to lower emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), but US carbon cap-and-trade legislation was proposed and failed to become law. Instead, the biofuel use mandate is the primary existing GHG reduction program in the United States. The mandate effectively requires a rising amount of GHG abatement each year, but allows regulated parties to buy and sell credits to meet annual obligations. Although many aspects of the biofuel mandate look similar to a cap-and-trade program, there are additional requirements, such as feedstock eligibility limitations and waivers. The existence of the mandates is presumably conditional on all the legal requirements, but these conditions represent a departure from a strict GHG cap-and-trade program. We estimate GHG abatement costs of the mandate and compare them to a hypothetical cap-and-trade program targeting vehicle fuels. The mandate abatement cost is found to be higher than a hypothetical GHG cap-and-trade. Our results show that the RFS might be judged as a feasible substitute for a cap-and-trade regime that can deliver GHG reductions, but at a higher cost reflecting its multiple objectives.

中文翻译：

---

美国生物燃料指令可替代碳限额与交易

摘要 环境经济学家可能会推荐限额与交易计划作为降低温室气体 (GHG) 排放的好方法，但美国提出了碳限额与交易立法，但未能成为法律。相反，生物燃料使用授权是美国现有的主要温室气体减排计划。该授权实际上要求每年增加温室气体减排量，但允许受监管方购买和出售信贷以满足年度义务。尽管生物燃料授权的许多方面看起来类似于限额与交易计划，但还有其他要求，例如原料资格限制和豁免。授权的存在可能以所有法律要求为条件，但这些条件代表了与严格的温室气体限额与交易计划的背离。我们估算了该指令的温室气体减排成本，并将其与假设的针对车辆燃料的限额与交易计划进行了比较。发现强制减排成本高于假设的温室气体限额与交易。我们的结果表明，RFS 可能被认为是可以减少温室气体排放的限额与交易制度的可行替代品，但其成本更高，反映了其多重目标。