The cost of reducing CO2 emissions: Integrating abatement technologies into economic modeling

Ecological Economics

Volumn 87, Issue , 2013, Pages 62-71

  Kiuila, O ^a,b   Rutherford, T F ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

Carbon tax; Computable general equilibrium model; Cost curve; Elasticity of substitution; Hybrid modeling

Indexed keywords

ABATEMENT COST; CALIBRATION; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA SET; DEMAND ANALYSIS; EMISSION CONTROL; EMISSIONS TRADING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLLUTION TAX;

SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84872697657     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. BAFU Emissionen nach CO2-Gesetz und Kyoto-Protokoll. Technical Report 2007, Bundesamt fuer Umwelt.
2. Bergman L. CGE modeling of environmental policy and resource management. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2005, vol. 3:1273-1306. North-Holland. K. Maeller, J. Vincent (Eds.).
3. Boehringer C. The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling. Energy Economics 1998, 20:233-248.
4. Boehringer C., Rutherford T. Combining bottom-up and top-down. Energy Economics 2008, 30:574-596.
5. Bovenberg A., Goulder L., Jacobsen M. Costs of alternative environmental policy instruments in the presence of industry compensation requirements. Journal of Public Economics 2008, 92:1236-1253.
6. Conrad K. Computable general equilibrium models in environmental and resource economics. The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2002/2003 2002, 66-114. Edward Elgar. T. Tietenberg, H. Folmer (Eds.).
7. Dellink R. Modelling the Costs of Environmental Policy: a Dynamic Applied General Equilibrium Assessment 2005, Edward Elgar.
8. Drouet L., Haurie A., Labriet M., Thalmann P., Vielle M., Viguier L. A coupled bottom-up/top-down model for GHG abatement scenarios in the Swiss housing sector. Energy and Environment 2005, vol. 18:26-71. Kluwer Academic Publishers. R. Loulou, J. Waaub, G. Zaccour (Eds.).
9. Frei C., Haldi P., Sarlos G. Dynamic formulation of a top-down and bottom-up merging energy policy model. Energy Policy 2003, 31:1017-1031.
10. Goulder L. Using cap and trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Backgrounder 2010, Resources for the Future and National Energy Policy Institute.
11. He J., Roland-Holst D. Chinese growth and atmospheric pollution: an empirical assessment of challenges and opportunities. Working Paper 14 2005, CERDI.
12. 2 greenhouse gas abatement. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2003, 8:175-186.
13. Imhof, J., Rutherford, T., 2010. Carbon Taxes in Switzerland: Of Fuel Exemptions and Revenue Recycling. mimeo. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
14. Jacoby H., Reilly J., McFarland J., Paltsev S. Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model. Energy Economics 2006, 28:610-631.
15. Jacoby H., Babiker M., Paltsev S., Reilly J. Sharing the burden of GHG reductions. Discussion Paper 9 2008, Harvard Kennedy School.
16. Jorgenson D., Goettle R., Wilcoxen P., Ho M. The economic costs of a market-based climate policy. White Paper 2008, Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
17. Kiuila O. Interactions between trade and environmental policies in the Czech economy. Working Paper 56 2011, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
18. Kiuila O., Rutherford T. Approximation of marginal abatement cost curve. Working Paper 52 2011, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
19. Kiuila O., Sleszynski J. Expected effects of the ecological tax reform for the Polish economy. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:103-120.
20. Koopmans C., Velde D. Bridging the energy efficiency gap: using bottom-up information in a top-down energy demand model. Energy Economics 2001, 23:57-75.
21. Laitner S., Hanson D. Modeling detailed energy-efficiency technologies and technology policies within a CGE framework. Energy Journal 2006, 27:151-170.
22. Top-down or bottom-up modelling? An application to CO2 abatement. SEO-report 356 1995, Foundation for Economic Research of the University of Amsterdam. F. Laroui, M. van Leeuwen (Eds.).
23. Loisel R. Environmental climate instruments in Romania: a comparative approach using dynamic CGE modelling. Energy Policy 2009, 37(6):2190-2204.
24. McKinsey report Swiss greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. Technical Report 2009, Mckinsey & Company, Zurich.
25. Nestor D., Pasurka C. Alternative specifications for environmental control costs in a general equilibrium framework. Economics Letters 1995, 48:273-280.
26. Parry I., Williams R., Goulder L. When can carbon abatement policies increase welfare? The fundamental role of distorted factor markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37:52-84.
27. Pizer W., Burtraw D., Harrington W., Newell R., Sanchirico J. Modeling economy-wide vs sectoral climate policies using combined aggregate-sectoral models. Energy Journal 2006, 27:135-168.
28. Robinson S., Subramanian S., Geoghegan J. Modeling air pollution abatement in a market based incentive framework for the Los Angeles basin. Economic Instruments for Air Pollution Control 1994, vol. 9:46-72. Kluwer Academic Publishers. G. Klaassen, F.R. Forsund (Eds.).
29. Schmutzler A., Goulder L. The choice between emission taxes and output taxes under imperfect monitoring. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32:51-64.
30. Sue Wing I. The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 2006, 34(18):3847-3869.
31. Wissema W., Dellink R. AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy. Ecological Economics 2007, 61:671-683.
32. Xie J., Saltzman S. Environmental policy analysis: an environmental computable general-equilibrium approach for developing countries. Journal of Policy Modeling 2000, 22:453-489.