Suchergebnisse

Although CO2 emissions stand for most of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the contribution of mitigation efforts based on non-CO2 emissions is still a field that needs to be explored more thoroughly. Extending abatement opportunities to non-CO2 could reduce overall mitigation costs but it could also exert a negative pressure on agricultural output. This paper offers insights about the first effect while provides a preliminary discussion for the second. We investigate the role of non-CO2 GHGs in climate change mitigation in Europe using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. We develop a specific modelling framework extending the model with non-CO2 GHGs as an additional mitigation alternative. These modifications allow us to analyse the implications for the European Union (EU) of including non-CO2 GHG emissions in its cap and trade system. We distinguish two targets on all GHG emissions for 2020, a reduction by 20% and 30% with respect to 1990 levels. Within each reduction cap, we consider two mitigation opportunities by means of a carbon tax levied on: 1) CO2 emissions only, and 2) All GHGs emissions (both CO2 and non-CO2 GHG). Results show that a multi-gas mitigation policy would slightly decrease policy costs compared to the CO2 only alternative.

This paper aims to present an extension of the ICES model to capture the public sector. Departing from a demand system mainly derived from the GTAP model, ICES-XPS model disentangles the private and the public actors. The paper reviews the changes in both the database and the model equations following the existing literature and considering the availability of data as well. The model is then tested with a series of simple experiments to highlight its contribution to economic analysis in which the public sector may play an important role. Finally, we show the flexibility in the closure rule of the public sector that allows addressing different policy research questions.

AbstractThe European Union (EU) is now discussing a legislation proposal to ban illegal timber from the EU market. We use the ICES model to estimate the reallocation of global demand and timber imports following the EU legislation. We aim to assess the economic impacts and measure the potential emission reduction resulting from the introduction of this policy. Results show that an EU ban targeting only log imports is not effective in reducing illegal logging, but its main effect is the removal of illegal logs from international markets. Additionally, the unilateral EU ban increases secondary wood production in illegal logging countries as their exports become relatively more competitive. Through this mechanism, part of the banned illegal timber will re-enter international trade flows 'hidden' as processed wood. Extending the ban to timber processed products eliminates this effect and reinforces direct carbon emissions reduction from logging activities.

ABSTRACTHuman-generated greenhouse gases depend on the level and emissions intensity of economic activities. Therefore, most climate-change studies are based on the models and scenarios of economic growth. Economic growth itself, however, is likely to be affected by climate-change impacts. These impacts affect the economy in multiple and complex ways: changes in productivity, resource endowments, production and consumption patterns. We use a new dynamic, multi-regional computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the world economy to answer the following questions: Will climate-change impacts significantly affect growth and wealth distribution in the world? Should forecasts of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions be revised, once the climate-change impacts are taken into account? We found that, even though economic growth and emission paths do not change significantly at the global level, relevant differences exist at the regional and sectoral level. In particular, developing countries appear to suffer the most from the climate-change impacts.

Illegal logging is widely recognized as a major economic problem and one of the causes of environmental degradation. Increasing awareness of its negative effects has fostered a wide range of proposals to combat it by major international conservation groups and political organizations. Following the 2008 US legislation which prohibits the import of illegally harvested wood and wood products, the European Union (EU) is now discussing a legislation proposal which would ban illegal timber from the EU market. In this study we use the ICES computable general equilibrium model to estimate the reallocation of global demand and timber imports following the pending EU legislation. With this exercise our final objective is to assess the economic impacts and measure the potential emission reduction resulting from the introduction of this type of policy. Results show that while the EU ban does not seem particularly effective in reducing illegal logging activities, its main effect will be the removal of illegal logs from the international markets. In addition, the unilateral EU ban on illegal logs increases secondary wood production in illegal logging countries as their exports become relatively more competitive. Through this mechanism, part of the banned, illegal timber will re-enter the international trade flows, but it will be 'hidden' as processed wood. This effect is, however, limited. Finally, given the limited effect on overall economic activity, effects on GHG emissions are also limited. Direct carbon emissions from logging activities can decrease from 2.5 to 0.6 million tons per year.

The present research proposes a macroeconomic assessment of the role of waste incineration with energy recovery (WtE) and controlled landfill biogas to electricity generation and their potential contribution to a CO2 emission reduction policy, within a recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium model. From the modelling viewpoint, introducing these energy sectors in such a framework required both the extension of the GTAP7 database and the improvement of the ICES production nested function. We focus our analysis on Italy as a signatory of the GHG reduction commitment of 20% by 2020 wrt 1990 levels proposed by the European Community; the rest of the world is represented by 21 geo-political countries/regions. It is shown that albeit in the near future WtE and landfill biogas will continue to represent a limited share of energy inputs in electricity sector (in Italy, around 2% for WtE and 0.6% for biogas in 2020) they could play a role in a mitigation policy context. The GDP cost of the EU emission reduction target for the Italian economy can indeed be reduced by 1% when the two energy generating options are available. In absolute terms, this translates into an annuitized value of 87-122 million €.

Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions, accounting for around 17% of total annual anthropogenic carbon release. While the cost estimates of reducing deforestation rates vary considerably depending on model assumptions, it is widely accepted that emissions reductions from avoided deforestation consist of a relatively low cost mitigation option. Halting deforestation is therefore not only a major ecological challenge, but also a great opportunity to cost effectively reduce climate change negative impacts. In this paper we analyze the impact of introducing avoided deforestation credits into the European carbon market using a multiregional Computable General Equilibrium model - the ICES model (Inter-temporal Computable Equilibrium System). Taking into account political concerns over a possible 'flooding' of REDD credits, various limits to the number of REDD allowances entering the carbon market are considered. Finally, unlike previous studies, we account for both direct and indirect effects occurring on land and timber markets resulting from lower deforestation rates. We conclude that avoided deforestation notably reduces climate change policy costs - by approximately 80% with unlimited availability of REDD credits - and may drastically reduce carbon prices. Policy makers may, however, effectively control for these imposing limits to avoided deforestation credits use. Moreover, avoided deforestation has the additional positive effect of reducing carbon leakage of a unilateral European climate change policy. This is good news for the EU, but not necessarily for REDD regions. Indeed we show that REDD revenues are not sufficient to compensate REDD regions for a less leakage-affected and more competitive EU in international markets. In fact, REDD regions would prefer to free ride on the EU unilateral mitigation policy.

The reduction of GHG emissions is one of the most important policy objectives worldwide. Nonetheless, concrete and effective measures to reduce them are hardly implemented. One of the main reasons for this deadlock is the fear that unilateral actions will reduce a country's competitiveness, and will benefit those countries where no GHG mitigation measures are implemented. This kind of argument is also often used to explain why some governments and many business leaders are not in favour of the EU 30% GHG mitigation target that has been proposed to replace the previous 20% GHG emission reduction objective approved by the EU within the well-known 20-20-20 climate and energy package. By developing and applying a recursive, dynamic, very detailed CGE model with energy generation from both fossil fuel and renewable sources, we address this issue by estimating the cost for different EU countries and industries of the EU climate and energy package under a set of alternative international scenarios on global GHG mitigation efforts. Results show that, thanks to the EU economic recession, achieving a 20% GHG emission reduction entails a moderate cost for the European Union - about 0.5% of EU GDP - even in the case of EU unilateral action. This cost could be reduced to almost zero if not only the European Union, but also the other major world economies, comply with the low pledge Copenhagen Accord. A 30% GHG emission reduction target would certainly be more costly: the total loss in the European Union would be 1.26% of EU GDP in the case of EU unilateral action, whereas the total cost would be 0.55% of EU GDP if all major economies reduce their own GHG emissions according to the low pledge Copenhagen Accord. Both border tax adjustments and free allocation of carbon permits are shown to be successful in reducing some adverse competitiveness effects of the EU GHG mitigation policy into energy intensive sectors, but at the expenses of the other economic sectors.