Advertisement

CGE Models in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Review and Spanish Case Study

  • M. Bourne
  • G. PhilippidisEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The publication of the Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has underlined once again the serious consequences of failing to act sufficiently to bring down global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. These consequences include (although are not restricted to) disrupted livelihoods from increased flooding; risks resulting from damage to infrastructure from extreme weather events; increased morbidity and mortality rates from periods of extreme heat and issues of food insecurity resulting from droughts, floods, and precipitation volatility. At the global level, the successor to the Kyoto agreement, the Paris Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ratified in December 2015, faces new uncertainty with the United States having pulled out of the agreement. For its part, since the launch of its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2005, the European Union (EU) has set its own relatively ambitious unilateral GHG reduction targets to 2020, with mooted GHG reductions of up to 40% (EC 2014) by 2030 (compared with 1990 levels).

References

  1. Adams PD, Horridge JM, Parmenter BR (2000) MMRF-Green: a dynamic, multi-sectoral, multi-regional model of Australia. Monash University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT CentreGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahammad H, Mi R (2005) Land use change modeling in GTEM accounting for forest sinks. In: EMF 22: climate change control scenarios. Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiker MH, Maskus KE, Rutherford TF (1997) Carbon taxes and the global trading system. 97. Centre for International Economic Studies, University of AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin NC, Devarajan S, Weiner RJ (1989) The ‘Dutch’ disease in a developing country: oil reserves in Cameroon. J Dev Econ 30(1):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman L (1991) Energy and environmental constraints on growth: a CGE modeling approach. J Policy Model 12(4):671–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard A, Vielle M, Viguier L (2006) Burden sharing within a multi-gas strategy. Energy J (no. Special Issue on Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy):289–304Google Scholar
  7. Birur D, Hertel T, Tyner W (2008) Impact of biofuel production on world agricultural markets: a computable general equilibrium analysis. 53. GTAP Working Papers. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Blitzer CR, Eckaus RS, Lahiri S, Meeraus A, Mercenier J, Srinivasan TN (1994) A general equilibrium analysis of the effects of carbon emission restrictions on economic growth in a developing country: Egypt. In: Mercenier J, Srinivasan TN (eds) Applied general equilibrium and economic development, pp 255–278Google Scholar
  9. Böhringer C (1998) The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling. Energy Econ 20(3):233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Böhringer C, Rutherford TF (2008) Combining bottom-up and top-Down. Energy Econ 30(2):574–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosello F, Eboli F, Parrado R, Rosa R (2010) REDD in the carbon market: a general equilibrium analysis. Sustainable Development Series. FEEMGoogle Scholar
  12. Bosello F, Campagnolo L, Carraro C, Eboli F, Parrado R, Portale E (2013) Macroeconomic Impacts of the EU 30% GHG Mitigation Target. 28. FEEM Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  13. Burniaux JM, Truong TP (2002) GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. 18. GTAP Technical Papers. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Burniaux JM, Nicoletti G, Oliveira-Martins J (1992) Green: a global model for quantifying the costs of policies to curb CO2 emissions. OECD Economic StudiesGoogle Scholar
  15. Bye B, Nyborg K (1999) The welfare effects of carbon policies: grandfathered quotas versus differentiated taxes. 261. Discussion Papers. Statistics Norway, Research DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  16. Capros P, Van Regemorter D, Paroussos L, Karkatsoulis P, Perry M, Abrell K, Ciscar JC, Pycroft J, Saveyn B (2013) GEM-E3 model documentation. Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  17. Conrad Klaus, Schröder Michael (1991) An evaluation of taxes on air pollutant emissions: an applied general equilibrium approach. Swiss J Econ Stat 127(2):199–224Google Scholar
  18. Dellink R (2000) Dynamics in an applied general equilibrium model with pollution and abatement. In: 3rd annual conference on global economic analysis. Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Dellink R, Van Ierland E (2006) Pollution abatement in the Netherlands: A dynamic applied general equilibrium assessment. J Policy Model 28(2):207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dellink R, Hofkes M, van Ierland E, Verbruggen H (2004) Dynamic modelling of pollution abatement in a CGE framework. Econ Model 21(6):965–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Devaraja S (1989) Natural resources and taxation in computable general equilibrium models of developing countries. J Policy Model 10(4):505–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards TH, Hutton JP (2001) Allocation of carbon permits within a country: a general equilibrium analysis of the United Kingdom. Energy Econ 23(4):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellerman AD, Decaux A (1998) Analysis of post-Kyoto CO2 emissions trading using marginal abatement curves. 40. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: a life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerlagh R, Dellink R, Hofkes M, Verbruggen H (2002) A measure of sustainable national income for the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 41(1):157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldberger AS, Klein LR (1955) An econometric model of the United States, 1929–1952. North Holland Publishing Co., AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Golub A, Hertel T, Lee HL, Rose S, Sohngen B (2009) The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for green-house gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resour Energy Econ 31(4):299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamdi-Cherif M (2012) Mitigation costs in second-best economies: time profile of emissions reductions and sequencing of accompanying measures. Presented at the 5th Atlantic workshop on energy and environmental economics, A Toxa, SpainGoogle Scholar
  29. Hazilla M, Kopp R (1990) Social cost of environmental quality regulations: a general equilibrium analysis. J Polit Econ 98(4):853–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horridge M, Parmenter BR, Pearson KR (1993) ORANI-G: a generic single-country computable general equilibrium model. Econ Fin Comput 3(2)Google Scholar
  31. Hotelling H (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 39(2):137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudson EA, Jorgenson DW (1974) US energy policy and economic growth, 1975–2000. Bell J Econ Manag Sci, 461–514Google Scholar
  33. Hudson EA, Jorgenson DW (1978) The economic impact of policies to reduce US energy growth. Resour Energy 1(3):205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hyman RC, Reilly JM, Babiker MH, De Masin A, Jacoby HD (2003) Modeling Non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. Environ Model Assess 8(3):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiuila O, Rutherford TF (2013) The cost of reducing CO2 emissions: integrating abatement technologies into economic modeling. Ecol Econ 87(March):62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee H, Oliveira-Martins J, Van der Mensbrugghe D (1994) The OECD green model: an updated overview. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Leontief WW (1941) Structure of American economy, 1919–1929. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. Rev Econ Stat, 262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maisonnave H, Pycroft J, Saveyn B, Ciscar JC (2012) Does climate policy make the EU economy more resilient to oil price rises? A CGE analysis. Energy Policy 47(August):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin R, Van Wijnbergen S (1986) Shadow prices and the inter-temporal aspects of remittances and oil revenues in Egypt. Nat Resour Macroecon, 142–168Google Scholar
  41. Morris JF (2009) Combining a renewable portfolio standard with a cap-and-trade policy: a general equilibrium analysis. Master of Science in Technology and Policy, MIT, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  42. Nestor DV, Pasurka CA Jr (1995a) Alternative specifications for environmental control costs in a general equilibrium framework. Econ Lett 48(3):273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nestor DV, Pasurka CA Jr (1995b) CGE model of pollution abatement processes for assessing the economic effects of environmental policy. Econ Model 12(1):53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nordhaus WD (1990) An intertemporal general-equilibrium model of economic growth and climate change. Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258:1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev, 741–765Google Scholar
  47. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Tay KH (2004) The cost of Kyoto protocol targets: the case of Japan. 112. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  48. Rive N (2010) Climate policy in Western Europe and avoided costs of air pollution control. Econ Model 27(1):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rutherford T (1992) The welfare effects of fossil carbon restrictions: results from a recursively dynamic trade model. 112. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Rutherford TF, Montgomery WD (1997) CETM: a dynamic general equilibrium model of global energy markets, carbon dioxide emissions and international trade. 97-3. Discussion Papers in Economics. University of Colorado at BoulderGoogle Scholar
  51. Rypdal K, Rive N, Aström S, Karvosenoja N, Aunan K, Bak JL, Kupiainen K, Kukkonen J (2007) Nordic air quality co-benefits from European Post-2012 climate policies. Energy Policy 35(12):6309–6322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Tol RS (2006) Multi-gas emission reduction for climate change policy: an application of fund. Energy J (no. Special Issue on Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy):235–250Google Scholar
  54. Vennemo H (1997) A dynamic applied general equilibrium model with environmental feedbacks. Econ Model 14(1):99–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang K, Wang C, Chen J (2009) Analysis of the economic impact of different Chinese climate policy options based on a CGE model incorporating endogenous technological change. Energy Policy 37(8):2930–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weitzman M (1974) Prices vs. Quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41(4):477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Willett K (1985) Environmental quality standards: a general equilibrium analysis. Manag Decis Econ 6(1):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xie J, Saltzman S (2000) Environmental policy analysis: an environmental computable general-equilibrium approach for developing countries. J Policy Model 22(4):453–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria (CITA)ZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations