scholarly journals Opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US pulp and paper industry

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Martin ◽  
N. Anglani ◽  
D. Einstein ◽  
M. Khrushch ◽  
E. Worrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Improve Energy Efficiency ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals Bringing the concept of drop-in fuels into the pulp and paper industry

BioResources ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 6553-6555
Author(s):  
Rayssa Pinto ◽  
Marcos Lúcio Corazza ◽  
Luiz Pereira Ramos
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Carbon Fixation ◽  
Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper ◽  
Biobased Products ◽  
Industrial Activities ◽  
Do So

The pulp and paper sector is undertaking several initiatives to decrease the carbon footprint of its industrial activities. To do so, any emission must be offset by introducing efficient carbon fixation strategies such as reforestation and the development of biobased products and processes. The production of drop-in fuels may play an important role in this scenario. Drop-in fuels provide a good way to add value to otherwise underutilized process streams and wastes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, minimizing other environmental impacts, and improving process sustainability.

Energy Efficiency and Climate Change

2019 ◽  
pp. 189-230
Author(s):  
David Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Automotive Emissions ◽  
Improve Energy Efficiency

This chapter describes how, for four decades, California has been at the forefront of national efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These initiatives began with policies to reduce energy use in order to avoid the construction of additional power plants and went on to include progressively more stringent energy efficiency standards and renewable energy mandates, additional curbs on automotive emissions, and a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions. The emergence and expansion of these efforts demonstrates the importance of the factors that have shaped environmental policy innovations in other areas. At the same time, these policies are also distinct from those described in the previous chapters. First, they developed more incrementally, with some backsliding, much conflict, and frequent compromises. Second, some of their policy triggers—most notably, the 1973 energy crisis and California's 2000–2001 energy deregulation fiasco—were unrelated to environmental risks or threats. Third, their scope, diversity, and economic impact have been more substantial than those of the state's regulations protecting land use, coastal areas, and automotive emissions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in marked contrast to the state's other environmental policy threats, California cannot protect itself from the risks of global climate change. This means that the state has a critical stake in promoting a “California effect” that will encourage other political jurisdictions both in and outside the United States to also restrict their greenhouse gas emissions.

scholarly journals Further Examination of the Market Valuation of Environmental Capital Expenditures by Pulp and Paper Companies

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
Perry Warren Solheim
Keyword(s):  
Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper Industry ◽  
Optimal Choice ◽  
Pulp And Paper ◽  
Capital Expenditures ◽  
Market Values ◽  
The Us ◽  
Best Available Technology ◽  
Available Technology ◽  
Environmental Capital

In this study I use the US pulp and paper industry to explore the equity market’s valuation of environmental capital expenditures. I replicate and extend a study by Clarkson, Li, and Richardson that bifurcates the industry into high and low polluting groups. As with their study, I find evidence indicating that the market values environmental capital expenditures by over-compliant firms while attaching no such value to the same expenditures by minimally compliant firms. I do not find that the market assesses unrecorded liabilities to firms that are minimally compliant. My extension also seeks to address two possible specification issues in the Clarkson, et. Al. approach.  The first, levels model they used is unbiased but inefficient.  Their model scaled by common shares outstanding attempts to rectify this inefficiency but may not be the optimal choice of scaling variable. My results suggest that a “Best Available Technology” approach to environmental regulation may carry additional incentives provided by the capital markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document