تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه های اقتصادی از پروتکل کیوتو
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|17972||2001||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Ecological Economics, Volume 38, Issue 1, July 2001, Pages 59–69
This paper examines the cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments under alternative assumptions regarding technology and technical change. Real GDP is modeled as a function of the capital, labor, and energy inputs. The analysis is based on data for 23 Annex 1 countries from 1965 to 1999. Two important results emerge. First, the standard assumption of Hicks neutral technical change and time and scale independent output elasticities is not supported by the data. Second, when technical change is allowed to be biased in favor of the energy and capital inputs, and when the output elasticities vary with the level of factor use and over time, the loss in real GDP due to the Kyoto commitments rises substantially. On average, the loss in real GDP is one and a half times higher than obtained under the standard assumptions.
In the past decade, a substantial body of literature has emerged analyzing the economic cost of reducing future carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The range of model structures is quite varied. At one end, there are highly aggregate, top-down, regional dynamic models based on optimal control techniques. There are also multi-sector models in the tradition of the regional computable general equilibrium models, which allow for inter-industry differences and international commodity trade. Yet another model type are the bottom-up style models with a significant level of detail on the energy sector including several fuel types and technology options for energy supply. Not surprisingly, these models yield very different numerical results. Recently, under the 16th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-16) organized by Stanford University, some of the most prominent among these models were used to estimate the potential costs of the Kyoto Protocol. Under this Protocol, Annex 1 countries, that is developed countries included in Annex 1 to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, have agreed to reduce their overall net greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by the years 2008–2012. As in the case of previous such exercises, the great advantage of the EMF study is that it tends to highlight the differences in model results due to different model structures, rather than differences in scenario construction. Despite the generally uniform scenarios under which the models were operated, the carbon tax in 2010 required for USA to meet its Kyoto commitments through domestic emissions reductions alone, ranged from about $75 per metric tonne to more than $400 per metric tonne (as measured in 1990 prices). In the case of Japan and the European Union, this range is even wider. However, there is one aspect in terms of which the model results are remarkably consistent. This relates to the estimated cost of the emissions reductions under Kyoto Protocol as measured by the loss in GDP in 2010. Table 1 summarizes the GDP impact on Annex 1 countries obtained under the no-trading scenario of EMF-16. The overriding conclusion that emerges from this Table is that the economic cost of the Kyoto commitments is small. On average, the loss in 2010 GDP would be less than 1%. Even in the models with the highest estimates, the reduction in GDP is about 2%.One factor that could possibly explain this result is the structure of the production function embedded in these models, and the nature of technical change implicit therein. While the models included in this study differ widely in terms of overall structure, they uniformly assume Hicks neutral technical change and time invariant production or output elasticities. In addition, it is also assumed that the output elasticities do not vary with the level of factor use. The current analysis has a dual focus. First, it will be shown that these assumptions are not borne out by the recent empirical history of the Annex 1 countries. Second, and more important, relaxing these assumptions may significantly increase the estimated loss in GDP.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper uses a simple econometric model to evaluate the sensitivity of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol commitments to standard economic assumptions regarding technology and technical change. While there are a large number of diverse and computationally sophisticated models being used to estimate the economic impact of the Protocol, they are remarkably uniform in their assumptions regarding the production function. The relative simplicity of current model is also its advantage in this context; it allows us to focus on the impact of the technology assumptions embodied in the production function on the economic cost of the Protocol. Two important results emerge. First, the common assumption of Hicks neutral technical change and intertemporally constant output elasticities is not supported by the data for the Annex 1 countries between 1965 and 1990, the countries and time period typically used to calibrate economic models of climate change. Instead, over this period, there are statistically significant trends in the output elasticities for all 23 countries included in the sample. Most important, an upward trend in the output elasticity of the energy input is observed. Furthermore, technical change is biased in favor of the energy and capital inputs and away from the labor input. Second, this finding has a significant impact in terms of the reduction in real GDP due to the Kyoto commitments. Under Hicks neutral technical change and constant output elasticities, the model yields a 6% decline in real GDP in 2010, on average, due to the CO2 reductions implicit in the Protocol. When technical change is allowed to be biased, and output elasticities are allowed to vary over time and with the level of factor use, the average loss in real GDP rises to about 9.5% in 2010. These results have potentially significant implications for future climate policy. The ratification deadline for the Kyoto Protocol passed on March 15, 1999. As of September 28, 2000, only 30 of the 84 signatory countries had ratified the Protocol. These do not include any Annex 1 countries. Without ratification by USA and at least some other Annex 1 countries, the Protocol cannot come into force. The results obtained in this paper indicate that the near term cost to USA and other Annex 1 countries of meeting their commitments are potentially higher than typically predicted by other work. If this is correct, then the likelihood that the Protocol would come into force in the near future is even lower, ceteris paribus. Perhaps the collapse of the recent Conference of Parties 6 at The Hague is indicative of this pessimistic possibility. The obvious next step would be to examine the impacts of relaxing similar assumptions regarding the nature of aggregate technology and technical change embedded in other, more sophisticated models. A priori, it is difficult to predict the results. However, it is quite possible that at least in the case of models such as RICE, FUND, MERGE3, and CETA, which have very long horizons of as much as 400 years, the cumulative impact over the model horizon would be quite significant.