Gains from emission trading under multiple stabilization targets and technological constraints

Energy Economics

Volumn 48, Issue , 2015, Pages 306-315

  Fujimori, Shinichiro ^a   Masui, Toshihiko ^a   Matsuoka, Yuzuru ^b,c  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Japan)

^b KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c National Institute for Environmental Studies ^*  (Japan)

Author keywords

CGE model; Climate mitigation policy; Emission trading; Technological assumptions

Indexed keywords

CARBON CAPTURE; CLIMATE MODELS; COST ACCOUNTING; LOSSES; STABILIZATION;

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CGE MODEL; CLIMATE MITIGATIONS; COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL; EMISSION TRADING; MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES; TECHNOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS;

COMMERCE;

COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS; EMISSIONS TRADING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MITIGATION; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EID: 85027954113     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.12.011     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akashi O., Hijioka Y., Masui T., Hanaoka T., Kainuma M. GHG emission scenarios in Asia and the world: the key technologies for significant reduction. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:S346-S358.
2. Böhringer C., Welsch H. Contraction and convergence of carbon emissions: an intertemporal multi-region CGE analysis. J. Policy Model 2004, 26:21-39.
3. Böhringer C., Löschel A., Moslener U., Rutherford T.F. EU climate policy up to 2020: an economic impact assessment. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S295-S305.
4. 2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S107-S120.
5. Carbone J.C., Helm C., Rutherford T.F. The case for international emission trade in the absence of cooperative climate policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2009, 58:266-280.
6. Ciscar J.-C., Saveyn B., Soria A., Szabo L., Van Regemorter D., Van Ierland T. A comparability analysis of global burden sharing GHG reduction scenarios. Energy Policy 2013, 55:73-81.
7. Clarke J.F., Edmonds J.A. Modelling energy technologies in a competitive market. Energy Econ. 1993, 15:123-129.
8. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Krey V., Richels R., Rose S., Tavoni M. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S64-S81.
9. den Elzen M., Höhne N., Moltmann S. The Triptych approach revisited: a staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation. Energy Policy 2008, 36:1107-1124.
10. Dimaranan B.V. Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 6 Data Base 2006, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University. B.V. D. (Ed.).
11. EC-JRC/PBL Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.2 2012, European Commission JRCJNEAAP (Ed.).
12. Fujimori S., Matsuoka Y. Development of method for estimation of world industrial energy consumption and its application. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:461-473.
13. Fujimori S., Masui T., Matsuoka Y. AIM/CGE [Basic] Manual, Discussion Paper Series 2012, Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, National Institute Environemntal Studies, (http://www.nies.go.jp/social/dp/pdf/2012-01.pdf).
14. Fujimori S., Hasegawa T., Masui T., Takahashi K. Land use representation in a global CGE model for long-term simulation: CET vs. logit functions. Food Security 2014, 6:685-699.
15. Fujimori S., Masui T., Matsuoka Y. Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology. Appl. Energy 2014, 128:296-306.
16. Fujimori S., Kainuma M., Masui T., Hasegawa T., Dai H. The effectiveness of energy service demand reduction: a scenario analysis of global climate change mitigation. Energy Policy 2014, 75:379-391.
17. Hasegawa T., Fujimori S., Shin Y., Takahashi K., Masui T., Tanaka A. Climate change impact and adaptation assessment on food consumption utilizing a new scenario framework. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48:438-445.
18. Hof A.F., Elzen M.G.J., Vuuren D.P. Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2009, 15:19-40.
19. 2 Capture and Storage - A Key Carbon Abatement Option 2008, OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
20. IEA Energy Balances for Non-OECD Countries 2009, (Paris, France). OECD/IEA (Ed.).
21. IEA Energy Balances for OECD Countries 2009, (Paris, France). OECD/IEA (Ed.).
22. IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 2012, International Energy Agency (IEA).
23. IIASA Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) Database Version 0.9.3 2012.
24. IPCC Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, H.L. Miller (Eds.).
25. Kawase R., Matsuoka Y. Reduction targets under three burden-sharing schemes for 50% global GHG reduction toward 2050. Energy Policy 2013, 63:1126-1138.
26. Krey V., Riahi K. Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets-greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S94-S106.
27. Kriegler E., Weyant J.P., Blanford G.J., Krey V., Clarke L., Edmonds J., Fawcett A., Luderer G., Riahi K., Richels R., Rose S.K., Tavoni M., Vuuren D.P. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim. Chang. 2014, 123(3-4):353-367.
28. Lofgren H., Harris R.L., Robinson S. A standard computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in GAMS, MICROCOMPUTERS IN POLICY RESEARCH, 5 2002, International Food Policy Research Institute.
29. 2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2007, 10:85-103.
30. -2 radiative forcing. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109:59-76.
31. O'Neill B., Kriegler E., Riahi K., Ebi K., Hallegatte S., Carter T., Mathur R., Vuuren D. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Chang. 2014, 122:387-400.
32. OECD Input-Output Tables 2010, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
33. Rogelj J., McCollum D.L., Reisinger A., Meinshausen M., Riahi K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 2013, 493:79-83.
34. Schumacher K., Sands R.D. Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany. Energy Policy 2006, 34:3929-3941.
35. Tavoni M., Socolow R. Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim. Chang. 2013, 118:1-14.
36. 2 mitigation measures. Energy Policy 2013, 62:561-572.
37. UN National Accounts Main Aggregates Database 2007, (New York, USA). Nations U (Ed.).
38. UN United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database 2007, New York, USA. Nations U (Ed.).
39. UNIDO INDSTAT2-2009 edition 2009, (Vienna, Austria). (UNIDO) UNIDO (Ed.).
40. van Vuuren D.P., Stehfest E., Elzen M.G.J., Kram T., Vliet J., Deetman S., Isaac M., Goldewijk Kees Klein, Hof A., Mendoza Beltran A., Oostenrijk R., Ruijven B. RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109:95-116.
41. Webster M., Paltsev S., Reilly J. The hedge value of international emissions trading under uncertainty. Energy Policy 2010, 38:1787-1796.