Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 257–289 | Cite as

Capital Malleability, Emission Leakage and the Cost of Partial Climate Policies: General Equilibrium Analysis of the European Union Emission Trading System



Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are the premier analytical platform for assessing the economic impacts of climate change mitigation. But these models tend to treat physical capital as “malleable”, capable of reallocation among sectors over the time-period for which equilibrium is solved. Because the extent to which capital adjustment costs might dampen reallocation is not well understood, there is concern that CGE assessments understate the true costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policies. This paper uses a multi-region, multi-sector CGE model to investigate cap-and-trade schemes, such as the European Union Emission Trading System which cover a subset of the economy, elucidating the effects of capital malleability on GHG abatement, the potential for emission leakage from abating to non-abating sectors, and the impacts on welfare. To simplify the complex interactions being simulated within the CGE model, that analysis is complemented with an analytical model. A partial climate policy results in negative internal carbon leakage, with emissions declining not only in capped sectors but also in non-regulated ones. This result is stronger when capital is intersectorally mobile. Interestingly, in partial climate policy settings capital malleability can amplify or attenuate welfare losses depending on the attributes of the economy.


General equilibrium CGE models Climate change policy  Emissions trading Capital malleability 


  1. Armington P (1969) A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. Int Monet Fund Staff Pap 16:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boeters S, Bollen J (2012) Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy, CPB Discussion Paper No. 215, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhringer C, Fischer C, Rosendahl KE (2010) The global effects of subglobal climate policies. BE J Econ Anal Policy 10:Article 13Google Scholar
  4. Bovenberg A, de Mooij R (1994) Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. Am Econ Rev 84:1085–1089Google Scholar
  5. Brooke A, Kendrick D, Meeraus A, Raman R (1998) GAMS: a user’s guide. GAMS Corp, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Burniaux J, Truong T (2002) GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP technical paperGoogle Scholar
  7. Capros P, Georgakopoulos T, Regemorter DV, Proost S, Schmidt T, Conrad K (1997) European union: the GEM-E3 general equilibrium model. Econ Financial Model 4:51–160Google Scholar
  8. Convery FJ (2009) Reflections—the emerging literature on emissions trading in Europe. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper R, Haltiwanger J (2006) On the nature of capital adjustment costs. Rev Econ Stud 73:611–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cremer H, Gahvari F, Ladoux N (2003) Environmental taxes with heterogeneous consumers: an application to energy consumption in France. J Public Econ 87:2791–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dirske S, Ferris M (1995) The path solver: a non-monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems. Optim Methods Softw 5:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixit A (1989) Intersectoral capital reallocation under price uncertainty. J Int Econ 26:309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisfeldt AL, Rampini AA (2006) Capital reallocation and liquidity. J Monet Econ 53:369–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferris MC, Munson TS (2000) Complementarity problems in GAMS and the PATH solver. J Econ Dyn Control 24:165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fullerton D, Heutel G (2007) The general equilibrium incidence of environmental taxes. J Public Econ 91: 571–591Google Scholar
  16. Fullerton D, Metcalf GE (2002) Tax incidence. In: Auerbach A, Feldstein M (eds) Handbook of public economics, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1787–1872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fullerton D, Karney D, Baylis K (2011) Negative leakage, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17001Google Scholar
  18. Gapinski J (1985) Capital malleability, macro performance and policy effectiveness. South Econ J 52:150–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goolsbee A (1998) The business cycle, financial performance, and the retirement of capital goods. Rev Econ Dyn 1:474–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goolsbee A, Gross DB (1997) Estimating adjustment costs with data on heterogeneous capital goods, NBER Working Paper No. 6342Google Scholar
  21. Groth C (2008) Quantifying UK capital adjustment costs. Economica 75:310–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison G, Rutherford T, Tarr D (1997a) Opciones de politica comercial para Chile: una evaluacion cuantitiva. Cuadernos de Economia 34:101–137Google Scholar
  23. Harrison G, Rutherford T, Tarr D (1997b) Quantifying the Uruguay round. Econ J 107:1405–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacoby H, Sue Wing I (1999) Adjustment time, capital malleability, and policy cost. Energy J Special Issue Costs Kyoto Protoc Multi-Model Eval 20:73–92Google Scholar
  25. Klepper G, Peterson S, Springer K (2003) DART97: a description of the multi-regional, multi-sectoral trade model for the analysis of climate policies, Working Paper No. 1149, Kiel Institute for the World EconomyGoogle Scholar
  26. Koetse MJ, de Groot HL, Florax RJ (2008) Capital-energy substitution and shifts in factor demand: a meta-analysis. Energy Econ 30(5):2236–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lecca P, Swales K, Turner K (2011) Rebound effects from increased efficiency in the use of energy by UK households, Working Paper No. 1123, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee H-L (2002) An emissions data base for integrated assessment of climate change policy using GTAP. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, GTAP Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee H-L (2008) The combustion-based \({CO}_2\) emissions data for GTAP version 7 data base, Working Paper. National Chengchi University, Economics DeptGoogle Scholar
  30. Narayanan BG, Walmsley TL (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base. Center for Global Trade AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  31. Newell R, Pizer W (2008) Indexed regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 56:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olivier JG, Janssens-Maenhout G, Peters JA (2012) Trends in global \(CO_2\) emissions: 2012 report, Technical report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  33. Paltsev S, Reilly J, Jacoby H, Eckaus R, McFarland J, Sarofim M, Asadoorian M, Babiker M (2005) The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: Version 4. Joint Program Sci Policy Glob ChangeGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramey VA, Shapiro MD (1998) Costly capital reallocation and the effects of government spending. Carnegie–Rochester Conf Ser Public Policy 48:145–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramey VA, Shapiro MD (2001) Displaced capital: a study of aerospace plant closings. J Political Econ 109:958–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reilly J, Paltsev S (2006) European greenhouse gas emissions trading: a system in transition. In: de Miguel C, Labandeira X, Manzano B (eds) Economic modelling of climate change and energy policies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 45–64Google Scholar
  37. Rutherford TF (1999) Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: an overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Comput Econ 14:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rutherford T (2005) GTAP6inGAMS: the dataset and static model, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  39. Soderholm P (2001) Fossil fuel flexibility in West European power generation and the impact of system load factors. Energy Econ 23:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sue Wing I (2006) The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US \(CO_2\) emissions. Energy Policy 34(18):3847–3869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sue Wing I (2009) Computable general equilibrium models for the analysis of energy and climate policies. In: Evans J, Hunt L (eds) International handbook on the economics of energy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 332–366Google Scholar
  42. van der Werf E (2008) Production functions for climate policy modeling: an empirical analysis. Energy Econ 30:2964–2979Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Climate Change and Sustainable DevelopmentFondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)VeniceItaly
  2. 2.Deparment of Geography & EnvironmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations