Technology detail in a multisector CGE model: Transport under climate policy

Energy Economics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-24

  Schäfer, Andreas ^a   Jacoby, Henry D ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Climate; General equilibrium; MARKAL; Technical change; Transportation

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILES; CLIMATOLOGY; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; TRANSPORT PROPERTIES;

CLIMATE POLICY; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM (CGE) MODEL; GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS;

ENERGY POLICY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS; EMISSION CONTROL; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

EID: 12444271151     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Austin, T.C., Dulla, R.G., Carlson, T.R., 1997. Automotive Fuel Economy Improvement Potential Using Cost-effective Design Changes, Draft #3, prepared for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Sierra Research, Sacramento, CA.
2. Austin, T.C., Dulla, R.G., Carlson, T.R., 1999. Alternative and Future Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Vehicles, report prepared for the "Transportation Table Subgroup on Road Vehicle Technology and Fuels", Sierra Research, Sacramento, CA.
3. Babiker, M., Bautista, M., Jacoby, H., Reilly, J., 2000. Effects of Differentiating Climate Policy by Sector: A U.S. Example Report, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 61, May.
4. Babiker, M., Reilly, J., Meyer, M., Eckaus, R., Sue Wing, I., Hyman, R., 2001. The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 71, February.
5. C. Böhringer The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling Energy Econ. 20 1998 233-248
6. D.L. Greene A. Schäfer Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation, PEW Center on Global Climate Change, May 2003, Arlington, VA 2003
7. D.L. Greene P. Patterson M. Singh J. Li Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: A study of incentives for increased fuel economy Energy Policy 2005 (in press)
8. T. Hertel Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications 1997 Cambridge University Press UK
9. International Energy Agency Energy Balances of OECD and Non-OECD Countries 1997 IEA/OECD Paris
10. Kypreos, S., 1996. The MARKAL-MACRO Model and the Climate Change, Paul Scherrer Institut. PSI Bericht Nr., 96-14, July.
11. A. Manne R. Richels Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emission Limits 1992 MIT Press Cambridge, MA
12. McFarland, J., Reilly, J., Herzog, H., 2002. Representing Energy Technologies in Top-Down Models Using Bottom-Up Information, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 89, October.
13. S. Messner L. Schrattenholzer MESSAGE-MACRO: Linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively Energy 25 2000 267-282
14. J. Reilly R. Prinn J. Harnisch J. Fitzmaurice H. Jacoby D. Kicklighter J. Melillo P. Stone A. Sokolov C. Wang Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto protocol Nature 401 1999 549-555
15. 2 gases 2002 Pew Center on Global Climate Change Arlington, VA
16. A. Schäfer D. Victor The future mobility of world population Transp. Res., Part A 34 3 2000 171-205
17. M. Webster M. Babiker M. Mayer J. Reilly J. Harnisch M. Hyman M. Sarofim C. Wang Uncertainty in emissions projections for climate models Atmospheric Environment 36 2002 3659-3670
18. Y. Zahavi The UMOT-Urban Interactions. DOT-RSPA-DPB 10/7 1981 US Department of Transportation Washington, DC