IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2008i1-2p249-258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial output restriction and the Kyoto protocol: An input-output approach with application to Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Lixon, Benoit
  • Thomassin, Paul J.
  • Hamaide, Bertrand

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to assess the economic impacts of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing industrial output in Canada to a level that will meet the target set out in the Kyoto Protocol. The study uses an ecological-economic Input-Output model combining economic components valued in monetary terms with ecologic components - GHG emissions - expressed in physical terms. Economic and greenhouse gas emissions data for Canada are computed in the same sectoral disaggregation. Three policy scenarios are considered: the first one uses the direct emission coefficients to allocate the reduction in industrial output, while the other two use the direct plus indirect emission coefficients. In the first two scenarios, the reduction in industrial sector output is allocated uniformly across sectors while it is allocated to the 12 largest emitting industries in the last one. The estimated impacts indicate that the results vary with the different allocation methods. The third policy scenario, allocation to the 12 largest emitting sectors, is the most cost effective of the three as the impacts of the Kyoto Protocol reduces Gross Domestic Product by 3.1% compared to 24% and 8.1% in the first two scenarios. Computed economic costs should be considered as upper-bounds because the model assumes immediate adjustment to the Kyoto Protocol and because flexibility mechanisms are not incorporated. The resulting upper-bound impact of the third scenario may seem to contradict those who claim that the Kyoto Protocol would place an unbearable burden on the Canadian economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Lixon, Benoit & Thomassin, Paul J. & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2008. "Industrial output restriction and the Kyoto protocol: An input-output approach with application to Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 249-258, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:249-258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00115-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kurt Kratena & Stefan Schleicher, 1999. "Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction on the Austrian Economy," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 245-261.
    2. Wu, JunJie & Skelton-Groth, Katharine, 2002. "Targeting conservation efforts in the presence of threshold effects and ecosystem linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 313-331, August.
    3. Carpentier, Chantal Line & Bosch, Darrell J. & Batie, Sandra S., 1998. "Using Spatial Information To Reduce Costs Of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Parkash Chandler & Henry Tulkens & Jean-Pascal Ypersele & Stephane Willems, 2006. "The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic and Game Theoretic Interpretation," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 195-215, Springer.
    5. Labandeira, Xavier & Labeaga, Jose M., 2002. "Estimation and control of Spanish energy-related CO2 emissions: an input-output approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 597-611, June.
    6. Nordhaus, William D & Yang, Zili, 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 741-765, September.
    7. Lant, Christopher L. & Kraft, Steven E. & Beaulieu, Jeffrey & Bennett, David & Loftus, Timothy & Nicklow, John, 2005. "Using GIS-based ecological-economic modeling to evaluate policies affecting agricultural watersheds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 467-484, December.
    8. Jean-Christophe Dissart & Laurie Baker & Paul J. Thomassin, 2000. "The Economics of Erosion and Sustainable Practices: The Case of the Saint-Esprit Watershed," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 48(2), pages 103-122, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Kronenberg, Tobias, 2009. "The impact of demographic change on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2637-2645, August.
    3. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & O'Connor, Martin & Rochette, Sébastien & Hecq, Walter, 2011. "Quantification of interdependencies between economic systems and ecosystem services: An input-output model applied to the Seine estuary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1660-1671, July.
    4. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Mateo Cordier & Walter Hecq & Rima Hawi & José Pérez Agúndez, 2014. "How to Make Environmental Targets Affordable in Estuarine Waters: Extending the Polluter Pays Principle?," Working Papers CEB 14-001, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Mateo Cordier & Thomas Poitelon & Walter Hecq, 2018. "Developing a shared environmental responsibility principle for distributing cost of restoring marine habitats destroyed by industrial harbors," Working Papers CEB 18-008, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Mateo Cordier & Takuro Uehara & Jeffrey Weih & Bertrand Hamaide, 2017. "An Input-output Economic Model Integrated Within a System Dynamics Ecological Model: Feedback Loop Methodology Applied to Fish Nursery Restoration," Post-Print hal-04166569, HAL.
    8. Fragkos, Panagiotis & Tasios, Nikos & Paroussos, Leonidas & Capros, Pantelis & Tsani, Stella, 2017. "Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 216-226.
    9. San Cristóbal, José Ramón, 2012. "A goal programming model for environmental policy analysis: Application to Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 303-307.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    2. Johan Eyckmans & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Simulating Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 218-249, Springer.
    3. Carraro, Carlo & Bosello, Francesco & Buchner, Barbara & Raggi, Davide, 2003. "Can Equity Enhance Efficiency? Some Lessons from Climate Negotiations," CEPR Discussion Papers 3606, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Helin, Janne, 2009. "Does geography matter in nutrient abatement? Bioeconomic model of heteregoneus farm nutrient loads," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51693, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Paolo Buonanno & Carlo Carraro & Efrem Castelnuovo & Marzio Galeotti, 2001. "Emission Trading Restrictions with Endogenous Technological Change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 379-395, July.
    6. Thierry Brechet and Henry Tulkens, 2015. "Climate Policies: A Burden, or a Gain?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    7. Sergey S. Rabotyagov & Manoj Jha & Todd D. Campbell, 2010. "Nonpoint-Source Pollution Reduction for an Iowa Watershed: An Application of Evolutionary Algorithms," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(s1), pages 411-431, December.
    8. CHANDER, Parkash & TULKENS, Henry, 2011. "The kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, the Cancun Agreements, and beyond: an economic and game theoretical exploration and interpretation," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2011051, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Ramilan, Thiagarajah & Scrimgeour, Frank G., 2006. "Abatement Cost Heterogeneity and its Impact on Tradable Nitrogen Discharge Permits," 2006 Conference, August 24-25, 2006, Nelson, New Zealand 31972, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. VAN STEENBERGHE, Vincent, 2004. "Core-stable and equitable allocations of greenhouse gas emission permits," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2004075, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Eigenraam, Mark & Strappazzon, Loris & Lansdell, Nicola & Beverly, Craig & Stoneham, Gary, 2006. "Designing Frameworks to Deliver Unknown Information to Support MBIs," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25673, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Parkash Chandler & Henry Tulkens & Jean-Pascal Ypersele & Stephane Willems, 2006. "The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic and Game Theoretic Interpretation," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 195-215, Springer.
    13. Shiran Victoria Shen, 2021. "Integrating Political Science into Climate Modeling: An Example of Internalizing the Costs of Climate-Induced Violence in the Optimal Management of the Climate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    15. Baker, Erin, 2005. "Uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment: global climate change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 19-40, January.
    16. Matthias Schmidt & Hermann Held & Elmar Kriegler & Alexander Lorenz, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Uncertain and Heterogeneous Climate Damages," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(1), pages 79-99, January.
    17. Casas, Omar J. & Romera, Rosario, 2011. "The international stock pollutant control: a stochastic formulation with transfers," DES - Working Papers. Statistics and Econometrics. WS ws112217, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Estadística.
    18. Pindyck, Robert S., 2019. "The social cost of carbon revisited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 140-160.
    19. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2006. "‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89, March.
    20. Basu, Arnab K. & Chau, Nancy H., 2001. "Market Access Rivalry and Eco-labeling Standards: Are Eco-labels Non-tariff Barriers in Disguise?," Working Papers 127662, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:249-258. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.