IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332089.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mitigation potential and Trade Effects of removing fossil fuel subsidies

Author

Listed:
  • Burniaux, J.M.
  • Chateau, J.

Abstract

Quoting a joint analysis made by the OECD and the IEA, G20 Leaders committed in September 2009 to ―rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption‖. This analysis was based on the OECD ENV-Linkages General Equilibrium model and shows that removing fossil fuel subsidies in a number of non-OECD countries could reduce world Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 10% in 2050 (OECD, 2009). Indeed, these subsidies are huge. IEA estimates indicate that total subsidies to fossil fuel consumption in 37 non-OECD countries in 2008 amounted to USD 557 billions (IEA, OPEC, OECD, World Bank, 2010). This represents almost five times the yearly bilateral aid flows to developing countries as defined by the Official Development Assistance (ODA). This paper discusses the assumptions, data and both environmental and economic implications of removing these subsidies. It shows that, though removing these subsidies would amount to roughly a seventh of the effort needed to stabilize GHG concentration at a level of 450ppm or below 2°C, the full environmental benefit of this policy option can only be achieved if, in parallel, emissions are also capped in OECD countries. Finally, though removing these subsidies qualifies as being a ―win-win‖ option at the global level in terms of environmental and economic benefits, this is not true for all countries/regions. The removal of fossil-fuel subsidies in non-OECD countries would have almost no impact on the total trade volumes at the world level although it would generate compositional changes both across traded goods and services and trading areas. Trade in fossil fuels, especially coal and natural gas, would be reduced, but these fuels account for a relatively small segment of total world trade and would be compensated, at least in the medium term, by an expansion of trade in energy-intensive goods. As for effects among different trading areas, the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies would increase the contribution of OECD countries in total world trade at the expense of a reduction of oil-exporting countries‘ imports and exports. This evolution results from the loss of competitiveness incurred by producers of energy-intensive goods in oilexporting countries that remove their subsidies and, at least in the medium term, by the corresponding gain of competitiveness reported by energy-intensive industries in OECD countries due to the fall of international fossil-fuel prices.The paper also provides some discussion about the robustness of these results.

Suggested Citation

  • Burniaux, J.M. & Chateau, J., 2011. "Mitigation potential and Trade Effects of removing fossil fuel subsidies," Conference papers 332089, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332089/files/5547.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jung, Hong-Sang & Thorbecke, Erik, 2003. "The impact of public education expenditure on human capital, growth, and poverty in Tanzania and Zambia: a general equilibrium approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 701-725, November.
    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. Haider A. Khan, 2007. "Social Accounting Matrix: A Very Short Introduction for Economic Modeling," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-477, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    2. Maisonnave, Hélène & Mamboundou, Pierre Nziengui, 2022. "Agricultural economic reforms, gender inequality and poverty in Senegal," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 361-374.
    3. Luc Savard & Stéphane Mussard, 2005. "Micro-simulation and Multi-decomposition: A Case Study: Philippines," Cahiers de recherche 05-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    4. Buffie, Edward F. & Atolia, Manoj, 2012. "Trade, growth, and poverty in Zambia: Insights from a dynamic GE model," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-229.
    5. Harald Fadinger & Pablo Fleiss, 2011. "Trade and Sectoral Productivity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 958-989, September.
    6. Debowicz, Darío & Golan, Jennifer, 2014. "The impact of Oportunidades on human capital and income distribution in Mexico: A top-down/bottom-up approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 24-42.
    7. Ferrari, Emanuele & Mueller, Marc & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez, 2010. "Using Macro Indicators for Consistent CGE Baselines," Conference papers 331987, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Mabugu, Ramos E. & Maisonnave, Helene & Henseler, Martin & Chitiga-Mabugu, Margaret & Makochekanwa, Albert, 2023. "Implications of COVID-19 and mitigation measures on gender and the Zimbabwean economy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    9. Agénor, Pierre-Richard & Bayraktar, Nihal & El Aynaoui, Karim, 2008. "Roads out of poverty? Assessing the links between aid, public investment, growth, and poverty reduction," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 277-295, June.
    10. Shazia Kousar & Farhan Ahmed & Muhammad Afzal & Juan E. Trinidad Segovia, 2023. "Is government spending in the education and health sector necessary for human capital development?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Nabil Annabi & Maxime Fougere & Min Li, 2013. "Foreign Competition and Income Distribution in Canada: A Dynamic Microsimulation CGE Model Analysis," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 525-547, December.
    12. Trofimov, Ivan D., 2020. "The optimum size of public education spending: panel data evidence," MPRA Paper 106847, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Boureima Sawadogo, 2022. "Drought Impacts on the Crop Sector and Adaptation Options in Burkina Faso: A Gender-Focused Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Vijay P. Ojha & Joydeep Ghosh, 2014. "Optimizing Public Expenditure Allocations between Secondary and Higher Education," Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Discussion Papers 14-02, Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
    15. Roberto Roson, 2022. "Education, Labor Force Composition, and Growth. A General Equilibrium Analysis," Working Papers 2022:07, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    16. André Lemelin, 2008. "Trade and the External Wealth of Nations," Cahiers de recherche 0814, CIRPEE.
    17. Deb, Surajit, 2010. "Can Trade Liberalization Promote Growth in Agriculture: Evidence from China and India," Conference papers 332011, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Jung, Suhyun & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Roberts, Roland K., 2009. "Public Expenditure and Poverty Reduction in the Southern United States," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 47145, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Tewodaj Mogues, 2011. "The Bang for the Birr: Public Expenditures and Rural Welfare in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 735-752.
    20. Nabil Annabi & Fatou Cissé & John Cockburn & Bernard Decaluwé, 2005. "Trade Liberalisation, Growth and Poverty in Senegal: a Dynamic Microsimulation CGE Model Analysis," Cahiers de recherche 0512, CIRPEE.

    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:332089. 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.