IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331700.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incorporating Household Transportation Sector into a General Economic Equilibrium Model: Implications for Climate Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Paltsev, Sergey
  • Karplus, Valerie
  • Reilly, John

Abstract

The transportation sector is responsible for a significant fraction of global anthropogenic emissions. An explicit representation of household transportation technologies, such as internal-combustion engine vehicles, plug-in electric cars, biofuel based vehicles, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, is important for quantitative analysis of energy and environmental policy. A methodology for incorporating different household transportation technologies into a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is presented in this paper. We begin with the basic data that supports CGE models, the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) that includes the input-output tables of an economy, the use and supply of factors, and the disposition of goods in final consumption. We identify transport-related purchases of the household sector including fuel purchases and disaggregate the data for “own-supplied” transportation service that represents the use of personal automobiles. We then describe our approach to the modeling of improvement in internal-combustion fleet of private automobiles, introduction of plug-in electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles. We use the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, a computable general equilibrium model of the world economy, to analyze the expected penetration of different transportation technologies in several scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions control. The effect of introducing of reduced-carbon fuel substitutes, such as biomass fuels, is also explored. In the scenarios for 2010-2100 for the regions of the model we focus on the timing of entry of different household transportation technologies and implications for costs associated with achieving emissions constraints. Availability of low-carbon transportation technology reduces the consumption losses. In the absence of a strong carbon policy, plug-in electric and hydrogen-based cars would not play a significant role unless there is a significant decrease in vehicle cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Paltsev, Sergey & Karplus, Valerie & Reilly, John, 2008. "Incorporating Household Transportation Sector into a General Economic Equilibrium Model: Implications for Climate Policy," Conference papers 331700, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331700/files/3988.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. ALAN WINTERS & NEIL McCULLOCH & ANDREW McKAY, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Evidence So Far," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 14, pages 271-314, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. R. Radhakrishna & C. Ravi, 1992. "Effects of Growth, Relative Price and Preferences on Food and Nutrition," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 27, pages 303-323.
    3. A. Ganesh-Kumar & Manoj K. Panda & Mary E. Burfisher, 2006. "Reforms in Indian agro-processing and agriculture sectors in the context of unilateral and multilateral trade agreements," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2006-011, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Manoj Panda & A. Ganesh-Kumar, 2008. "Trade Liberalization, Poverty and Food Security in India," Trade Working Papers 22410, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. Manoj K. Panda & A. Ganesh Kumar, 2008. "Trade liberalization, poverty and food security in India abstract: This paper attempts to assess the impact of trade," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2008-013, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    3. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2007. "The Effects of the Colombian Trade Liberalization on Urban Poverty," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization and Poverty, pages 241-290, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Govinda R. Timilsina & John C. Beghin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe & Simon Mevel, 2012. "The impacts of biofuels targets on land‐use change and food supply: A global CGE assessment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 315-332, May.
    5. Ural Marchand, Beyza, 2012. "Tariff pass-through and the distributional effects of trade liberalization," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 265-281.
    6. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    7. Brambilla, Irene & Porto, Guido, 2016. "Trade, Poverty Eradication, and the Sustainable Development Goals," ADBI Working Papers 629, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    8. Guntur Sugiyarto*, 2005. "A Review of: “Ramkishen S. Rajan, Economic Globalization and Asia: Essays on Finance, Trade and Taxation," Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 397-402.
    9. Richard S.J. Tol & Gary W. Yohe, 2006. "The Weakest Link Hypothesis For Adaptive Capacity: An Empirical Test," Wesleyan Economics Working Papers 2006-005, Wesleyan University, Department of Economics.
    10. Verma, Monika & Hertel, Thomas W., 2009. "Commodity Price Volatility and Nutrition Vulnerability," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49344, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Peter Nunnenkamp & Rainer Thiele, 2013. "Financing for Development: The Gap between Words and Deeds since Monterrey," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 31(1), pages 75-98, January.
    12. Lawrence Edwards & Zaakirah Ismail & Godfrey Kamutando & Simbarashe Mambara & Matthew Stern & Fouche, 2022. "TheconsumerpriceeffectsofspecifictradepolicyrestrictionsinSouthAfrica," Working Papers 11036, South African Reserve Bank.
    13. Kis-Katos, Krisztina & Sparrow, Robert, 2015. "Poverty, labor markets and trade liberalization in Indonesia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 94-106.
    14. Matthias Finger & Rolf W. Künneke (ed.), 2011. "International Handbook of Network Industries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12961.
    15. Miet Maertens & Liesbeth Colen & Johan F. M. Swinnen, 2011. "Globalisation and poverty in Senegal: a worst case scenario?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 31-54, March.
    16. Farrukh Iqbal, 2006. "Sustaining Gains in Poverty Reduction and Human Development in the Middle East and North Africa," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7048, December.
    17. Khan, Aamir & Walmsley, Terrie & Mukhopadhyay, Kakali, 2019. "Trade Liberalization and Income Inequality: The Case for Pakistan," Conference papers 333125, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Peter Warr, 2008. "The transmission of import prices to domestic prices: an application to Indonesia," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 499-503.
    20. McDonald, Scott & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2008. "Leveling the Global Playing Field: Taxing Energy Use and Carbon Emissions," Conference papers 331766, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331700. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.