Carbon Pricing in Climate Policy: Seven Reasons, Complementary Instruments, and Political Economy Considerations

Carbon pricing is a recurrent theme in debates on climate policy. Discarded at the 2009 COP in Copenhagen, it remained part of deliberations for a climate agreement in subsequent years. As there is still much misunderstanding about the many reasons to implement a global carbon price, ideological resistance against it prospers. Here, we present the main arguments for carbon pricing, to stimulate a fair and well-informed discussion about it. These include considerations that have received little attention so far. We stress that a main reason to use carbon pricing is environmental effectiveness at a relatively low cost, which in turn contributes to enhance social and political acceptability of climate policy. This includes the property that corrected prices stimulate rapid environmental innovations. These arguments are underappreciated in the public debate, where pricing is frequently downplayed and the erroneous view that innovation policies are sufficient is widespread. Carbon pricing and technology policies are, though, largely complementary and thus are both needed for effective climate policy. We also comment on the complementarity of other instruments to carbon pricing. We further discuss distributional consequences of carbon pricing and present suggestions on how to address these. Other political economy issues that receive attention are lobbying, co-benefits, international policy coordination, motivational crowding in/out, and long-term commitment. The overview ends with reflections on implementing a global carbon price, whether through a carbon tax or emissions trading. The discussion goes beyond traditional arguments from environmental economics by including relevant insights from energy research and innovation studies as well

Prognostic Factors in 77 Curative Chest Wall Resections for Isolated Breast Cancer Recurrence

Background: Full-thickness chest wall resection (CWR) is the preferred treatment for breast cancer (BC) patients with extensive isolated locoregional recurrence. It remains a challenge to select patients that will benefit most from this treatment. The aim of this study was to define prognostic factors in patients who undergo CWR with curative intent. Methods: BC patients who underwent a CWR with curative intent for recurrence of disease between 1986 and 2006 were included in this retrospective study. Twenty-two factors were studied in a univariate analyses, and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses was performed. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included in this study. The 5-year overall survival was 25%. There was one postoperative death. Univariate analyses showed that three prognostic factors were significantly correlated with OS and disease-free survival: (1) interval between primary treatment and CWR (P = .02 and .004, respectively), (2) chemotherapy for recurrence (P = .05 and .05, respectively), and (3) resection specimen smaller than 150 cm2(P = .03 and .009, respectively). An interval lasting >10 years between primary treatment and CWR remained statistically significantly correlated with better overall survival and disease-free survival after multivariate analyses. Conclusions: CWR is a safe treatment in patients who have isolated extensive BC recurrence. The best survival outcome was seen in patients after a disease-free interval of >10 years. Existing data show that adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant hormone therapy for estrogen-positive tumors improves overall survival. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be considered in individual patients