Assessing energy-related CO2 emissions with sensitivity analysis and input-output techniques

Energy

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 161-170

  Tarancon, Miguel Angel ^a   Del Río, Pablo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

^b The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas   (Spain)

Author keywords

Input output techniques; Sensitivity analyses

Indexed keywords

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

HOTSPOTS; INPUT-OUTPUT; PRODUCTION SYSTEM;

CARBON DIOXIDE;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84863719344     PISSN: 03605442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.026     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Machado G., Schaeffer R., Worrell E. Energy and carbon embodied in the International Trade of Brazil: an input-output approach. Ecological Economics 2001, 39:409-424.
2. Mongelli I., Tassielli G., Notarnicola B. Global warming agreements, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input-output approach to the Italian case. Energy Policy 2006, 34(1):88-100.
3. Leontief W. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 1970, 52:262-271.
4. Leontief W., Ford D. Air pollution and the economic structure: empirical results of input-output computations. Input-Output techniques 1972, 9-30. North-Holland, Amsterdam. A. Brody, A. Carter (Eds.).
5. Proops J.L.R. Energy intensities, input-output analysis and economic development. Input-output analysis: Current developments 1988, 201-215. Chapman and Hall, London. M. Ciaschini (Ed.).
6. Gowdy J.M., Miller J.L. An input-output approach to energy efficiency in the U.S.A. and Japan (1960-1980). Energy 1991, 16(6):897-902.
7. Lenzen M. Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 1998, 26:496-506.
8. 2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility. Energy Policy 2001, 29:327-334.
9. 2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:121-141.
10. 2 emissions embodied in international trade: evidence for Spain. Energy Policy 2004, 32(18):1999-2005.
11. Gallego B., Lenzen M. Aconsistent input-output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility. Economic Systems Research 2005, 17(4):365-391.
12. Peters G.P., Hertwich E.G. Pollution embodied in trade: the Norwegian case. Global Environmental Change 2006, 16(4):379-387.
13. Butnar I., Llop M. Composition of greenhouse gas emissions in Spain: an input-output analysis. Ecological Economics 2007, 61(2-3):388-395.
14. Nässén J., Holmberg J., Wadeskog A., Nyman M. Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: an input-output analysis. Energy 2007, 32:1593-1602.
15. 2 emissions in Spain. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(3):905-914.
16. Alcántara V., del Río P., Hernández F. Structural analysis of electricity consumption by productive sectors. The Spanish case. Energy 2010, 35(5):2088-2098.
17. Yuan C., Liu S., Xie N. The impact on Chinese economic growth and energy consumption of the Global Financial Crisis: an input-output analysis. Energy 2010, 35:1805-1812.
18. Chen G.Q., Zhang B. Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: inventory and input-output analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38(10):6180-6193.
19. Dietzenbacher E., Los B. Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Economic. System Research 1998, 4:307-323.
20. Rose A., Chen C.Y. Sources of change in energy use in the U.S. economy, 1972-1982. Resources and Energy 1991, 13:l-21.
21. 2 emissions in Taiwan: an input-output approach. Energy Policy 1998, 26(1):5-12.
22. Wier M. Sources of changes in emissions from energy: a structural decomposition analysis. Economic Systems Research 1998, 10:99-112.
23. Chung H.S., Rhee H.C. Aresidual-free decomposition of the sources of carbon dioxide emissions: a case of the Korean industries. Energy 2001, 26:15-30.
24. Kagawa S., Inamura H. Astructural decomposition of energy consumption based on a Hybrid Rectangular input-output framework: Japan's case. Economic Systems Research 2001, 13:339-363.
25. De Haan M.A. Structural decomposition analysis of pollution in the Netherlands. Economic System Research 2001, 13(2):181-196.
26. Hoen A., Mulder M. Explaining Dutch emissions of CO2: a decomposition analysis. CPB discussion paper 2003, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague.
27. Alcántara V., Duarte R. Comparison of energy intensities in European Union countries. Results of a structural decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 2004, 32:177-189.
28. Llop M. Economic structure and pollution intensity within the environmental input-output framework. Energy Policy 2007, 35(6):3410-3417.
29. Roca J., Serrano M. Income growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain: an input-output approach. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(1):230-242.
30. Liu H., Xi Y., Guo J., Li X. Energy embodied in the international trade of China: an energy input-output analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38(8):3957-3964.
31. 2 emission intensities estimated using an input-output table. Applied Energy 2002, 72(3/4):689-704.
32. 2 emissions and intersectoral linkages. The case of Spain. Energy Policy 2007, 35(2):1100-1116.
33. 2 emissions. Energy Economics 2007, 29(3).
34. 2 emissions in the electricity sector. An intersectoral approach applied to the Spanish case. Energy Policy 2008, 36(6):1915-1926.
35. Tarancón M.A., Del Río P., Callejas F. Assessing the influence of manufacturing sectors on electricity demand. A cross-country input-output approach. Energy Policy 2010, 38(4):1900-1908.
36. Tarancón M.A., Del Río P., Callejas F. Determining the responsibility of manufacturing sectors regarding electricity consumption. The Spanish case. Energy 2011, 36(1):46-52.
37. Dietzenbacher E., Lahr M.L. Introduction. Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions 2001, 1-31. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. M. Lahr, E. Dietzenbacher (Eds.).
38. Schintke J., Stäglin R. Important input coefficients in market transactions tables and production flow tables. Input-output analysis. Current developments 1988, 45-60. Chapman and Hall, London. M. Ciaschini (Ed.).
39. Schnabl H. The ECA-method for identifying sensitive reactions within an IO context. Economic Systems Research 2003, 15:495-504.
40. Tarancón M.A., Callejas F., Dietzenbacher E., Lahr M.L. ARevision of the Tolerable limits approach: searching for the important coefficients. Economic Systems Research 2008, 20(1):75-95.
41. Dantzig G.B. Programming of interdependent activities, Part II: mathematical model. Econometrica 1949, 17:200-211.
42. Dorfman R., Samuelson P., Solow R. Linear programming and economic analysis 1958, Mc Graw Hill, New York.
43. James D.E., Musgrove A.R., Stocks K.J. Integration of an economic input-output model and a linear programming technological model for energy systems analysis. Energy Economics 1986, 8(2):99-112.
44. Tarancón M.A., Del Río P. Projection of input-output tables by means of mathematical programming based on the hypothesis of Stable structural Evolution. Economic Systems Research 2005, 17(1):1-24.
45. Bohlin L., Widell L. Estimation of commodity-by-commodity input-output matrices. Economic Systems Research 2006, 18:205-215.
46. Sikdar C., ten Raa T., Mohnen P., Chakraborty D. Bilateral trade between India and Bangladesh: a general equilibrium approach. Economic Systems Research 2006, 18:257-279.
47. Strømann H.A., Duchin F. Aworld trade model with bilateral trade based on comparative advantage. Economic Systems Research 2006, 18:281-297.
48. ten Raa T., Sahoo A. Competitive pressure on the Indian households: a general equilibrium approach. Economic Systems Research 2007, 19:57-71.
49. Hristu-Varsakelis D., Karagianni S., Pempetzoglou M., Sfetsos A. Optimizing production with energy and GHG emission constraints in Greece: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38(3):1566-1577.
50. San Cristóbal J.R. An Environmental/Input-Output Linear Programming model to reach the targets gor greenhouse gas emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol. Economic Systems Research 2010, 22(3):223-236.
51. 2 emissions in Catalonia: a SAM analysis. International Journal of environment. Workforce and Employment 2004, 1(1):91-106.
52. Sánchez-Chóliz J., Duarte R., Mainar A. Environmental impact of household activity in Spain. Ecological Economics 2007, 62(2):308-318.
53. Hartono D., Resosudarmo B.P. The economy-wide impact of controlling energy consumption in Indonesia: an analysis using a Social Accounting Matrix framework. Energy Policy 2008, 36(4):1404-1419.
54. 2 emissions structure of Indian economy. Energy 2009, 34(8):1024-1031.
55. Duarte R., Mainar A., Sánchez-Chóliz J. The impact of household consumption patterns on emissions in Spain. Energy Economics 2010, 32(1):176-185.
56. Rodríguez-Morilla C., Llanes G., Cardenete M.A. Economic and environmental efficiency using a social accounting matrix. Ecological Economics 2007, 60(4):774-786.
57. Forsund F.R. Input-output models, national economic models, and the environment. Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics 1985, 325-344. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.V. Kneese, J.L. Sweeney (Eds.).
58. Llop M., Pié L. Input-output analysis of alternative policies implemented on the energy activities: an application for Catalonia. Energy Policy 2008, 36(5):1642-1648.
59. Li P., Rose A. Global warming policy and the Pennsylvania economy: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Economic Systems Research 1995, 7(2):151-171.
60. Naqvi F. Acomputable general equilibrium model of energy, economy and equity interactions in Pakistan. Energy Economics 1998, 20(4):347-373.
61. Zhang Z. Macro-economic and sectoral effects of carbon Taxes: a general equilibrium analysis for China. Economic Systems Research 1998, 10(2):135-159.
62. Allan G., Hanley N., McGregor P., Swales K., Turner K. The impact of increased efficiency in the industrial use of energy: a computable general equilibrium analysis for the United Kingdom. Energy Economics 2007, 29(4):779-798.
63. Guivarch C., Hallegatte S., Crassous R. The resilience of the Indian economy to rising oil prices as a validation test for a global energy-environment-economy CGE model. Energy Policy 2009, 37(11):4259-4266.
64. Lu C., Zhang X., He J. ACGE analysis to study the impacts of energy investment on economic growth and carbon dioxide emission: a case of Shaanxi Province in western China. Energy 2010, 35:4319-4327.
65. Kretschmer B., Peterson S. Integrating bioenergy into computable general equilibrium models - A survey. Energy Economics 2010, 32(3):673-686.
66. Reinert K.A., Roland-Holst D.W. Industrial pollution linkages in North America: a linear analysis. Economic Systems Research 2001, 13(2):197-208.
67. 2 emissions in China. Energy Policy 2006, 35(3):1685-1700.
68. Ackerman F., Ishikawa M., Suga M. The carbon content of Japan-US trade. Energy Policy 2007, 35(9):4455-4462.
69. Li Y., Hewitt C.N. The effect of trade between China and the UK on national and global carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy 2008, 36(6):1907-1914.
70. 2 'trade balance' between Scotland and the rest of the UK: performing a multi-region environmental input-output analysis with limited data. Ecological Economics 2008, 66(40):662-673.
71. Wiedmann T., Lenzen B., Turner K., Barretta J. Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities - Part 2: review of input-output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecological Economics 2007, 61(1):15-26.
72. Wiedmann T. Areview of recent multi-region input-output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecological Economics 2009, 69(2):211-222.