Socio-technological impact analysis using an energy IO approach to GHG emissions issues in South Korea

Applied Energy

Volumn 88, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 3747-3758

  Chung, Whan Sam ^a   Tohno, Susumu ^b   Choi, Ki Hong ^c  

^a Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute   (South Korea)

^b KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c Korea Polytechnic University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

GHG emissions; Hybrid input output table; Index decomposition; LMDI II

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY UTILIZATION; SYNTHETIC RESINS; SYNTHETIC RUBBER;

DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS; ENERGY CONSUMPTION STRUCTURE; ENERGY ECONOMY; ENERGY SOURCE; GHG EMISSION; HYBRID INPUT-OUTPUT TABLE; IMPACT ANALYSIS; INDEX DECOMPOSITION; INPUT-OUTPUT; LMDI-II; LOW-CARBON; MATRIX; NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY; RIPPLE EFFECTS; SOUTH KOREA; TOTAL EMISSIONS;

GREENHOUSE GASES;

DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS; EMISSION INVENTORY; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENERGY USE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; GREENHOUSE GAS; INDUSTRIAL EMISSION; INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL IMPACT;

SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 79959817465     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.03.033     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Korea energy economics institute. Yearbook of Energy Statistics; 2009.
2. http://www.bok.or.kr.
3. OECD/IEA. Key world energy statistics; 2007.
4. Hoekstra R. Economic growth, material flows and the environment 2005, Edward Elgar.
5. Ang B.W., Zhang F.Q. A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 2000, 25:1149-1176.
6. Ang B.W. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred methods?. Energy Policy 2004, 32:1131-1139.
7. 2 emission in China: 1957-2000. Energy Policy 2005, 30:73-783.
8. Ma C., Stern D.I. China's changing energy intensity trend: a decomposition analysis. Energy Economics 2008, 30:1037-1053.
9. 2 emissions from a non-Kyoto protocol member's (Taiwan) perspective. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1499-1507.
10. 2 emissions in Greece for 1990-2002: a decomposition analysis and comparison of results using the arithmetic mean divisia index and logarithmic mean divisia index techniques. Energy 2007, 33:492-499.
11. O'Mahony T. Applying the scenarios method to project future Irish green house gas emissions to 2020. International Energy Workshop 2008 Parallel Session 1; 2008.
12. Löfgren Å, Muller A. The effect of energy efficiency on Swedish carbon dioxide emissions 1993-2004. School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gëteborg, Working Papers in Economics; 2008; No. 311.
13. Sands R.D., Schumacher K. Economic comparison of greenhouse gas mitigation options in Germany. Energy Efficiency 2009, 2:17-36.
14. Bacon RW, Bhattacharya S. Growth and CO2 emissions: how do different countries fare? Sustainable development vice presidency, environment department papers No. 113; 2007. p. 11.
15. Bataille C., Rivers N., Mau P., Joseph C., Tu J. How malleable are the greenhouse gas emission intensities of the G7 nations?. The Energy J 2007, 28:145-169.
16. Zhang Y. Opportunities for mitigating the environmental impact of energy use in the Middle East and North Africa region. ESMAP 2008; Discussion Paper.
17. Böhm DC. Assessment of global mitigation progress: a decomposition of CO2 emissions for the world's top emitting countries. In 32nd IAEE international conference, San Francisco; June 21-24, 2009.
18. 2 emissions from final fuel use: an empirical analysis. Energy Policy 2007, 35:5892-5900.
19. 2 emissions. IEEE 2008, 3915-3918.
20. Sandu S, Syed A. Trends in energy intensity in Australian industry. ABARE Report 08.15; 2008.
21. Cahill C., Gallachóir BÓ Comparing the use of ODEX indicators with Divisia decomposition analysis to measure true energy efficiency achievements: case study Irish industry. ECEEE 2009 Summer Study 2009, 1147-1154.
22. 2 emissions from electricity generation in seven Asia-Pacific and North American countries: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1-9.
23. Ang B.W., Liu N. Energy decomposition analysis: IEA model versus other methods. Energy Policy 2007, 35:1426-1432.
24. 2 emissions growth in Latin American and Caribbean countries: an LMDI decomposition analysis. Int J Energy Res 2009, 33:396-414.
25. Ang B.W., Choi K.H. Decomposition of aggregate energy and gas emission intensities for industry: a refined Divisia index method. The Energy J 1997, 18:59-73.
26. Bullard CW, Herendeen R. Energy impact of consumption decisions. In Sage A editor. Proceedings of IEEE 63:484-493. Reprinted in Systems Engineering; 1975. p. 276-85. IEEE Press; 1977 [Also reprinted in Ayres R, Button K, Nijkam, P. Global aspects of the environment 1999; I:233-42. Edward Elgar].
27. Miller R.E., Blair P.D. IO analysis: foundations and extensions 1985, Prentice-Hall Inc.
28. Chung W.S., Tohno S., Shim S.Y. An estimation of energy and GHG emission intensity caused by energy consumption in Korea: an energy IO approach. Appl Energy 2009, 86:1902-1914.
29. Chung W.S., Tohno S. A time-series energy input-output analysis for building an infrastructure for the energy and environment policy in South Korea. Energy Environ 2009, 20(6):875-899.
30. Shim SY. Composition of Korean energy IO table. Korea Energy Economics Institute. report no. 05-01, 2005;12:77-80 [in Korean].
31. IPCC, The revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (Revised Guidelines); 1996.
32. Dietzenbacher E., Stage J. Mixing oil and water? using hybrid input-output tables in a structural decomposition analysis. Econ Syst Res 2006, 18(1):85-95.