IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/002672/4213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Macroeconomic Impacts of Sectoral Approaches: The Role of the Cement Sector in China, Mexico and Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Voigt
  • Victoria Alexeeva-Talebi
  • Andreas Löschel

Abstract

The notion of sectoral approaches – in which developing and emerging economies are incentivized to undertake efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity or growth in key industrial sectors, potentially with assistance from developed countries – play an important role in the debate on how to bring the globe on a lower greenhouse gas emissions path. Most countries expressed preferences for one or another form of sector-specific actions and sectoral coverage. If successful, so the supporters of this mechanism, it could set incentives for a broader participation of developing countries in a post-Kyoto regime and open up further potential for low cost mitigation. The paper explores impacts of sectoral approaches as a set of options to engage emerging economies in setting policies for a lower emissions path and to address possible adverse impacts of stringent environmental policies on key energy-intensive industries in the European Union and emerging economies. Drawing on the example of the cement sector, the paper analyses alternative designs of sectoral approaches and the impact of these policy designs on macroeconomic and sectoral indicators in the European Union as well as China, Mexico and Brazil.For the analysis we use a coherent economic modeling framework based on the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model PACE (Policy Analysis based on Computable Equilibrium). The contribution of this paper is threefold: Employing a large-scale computable general equilibrium model of the global economy, we (i) extend the sectoral disaggregation of the GTAP 7 database towards the inclusion of a cement production sector, (ii) introduce the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curves from the sectoral studies in China, Mexico and Brazil to (iii) numerically analyze the macroeconomic and environmental implications of alternative designs of sectoral approaches. The main data source underlying the PACE model is the GTAP 7 database which represents global production and trade data for 113 regions and 57 sectors for the base year 2004. This database does not provide sufficient detail at the sectoral level for the envisaged analysis of sectoral approaches in the cement sector. We therefore perform a sectoral disaggregation of the GTAP 7 database using SplitCom (Horridge, 2005 & 2008). Based on additionally collected data, we disaggregate all relevant values of the underlying database – such as production, trade, primary and intermediate inputs including energy inputs, and final use – at the sectoral level for all model regions and balance the extended GTAP 7 database with the newly added sectors. We then use the PACE model to perform simulation analyses. The scenarios combine alternative regimes of sectoral approaches for the cement sectors in China, Mexico and Brazil. They represent either unilateral situations corresponding to bottom-up country commitments or sectoral crediting, i.e. developing countries are allowed to sell certified emission reductions into an existing carbon market.The overall level of EU welfare losses from environmental regulation for the EU-27 is moderate across all scenarios. Sectoral output losses are reduced in the scenarios containing sectoral approaches. This is due to a lower CO2 price in the EU ETS as the countries subject to sectoral approaches are endowed with emission certificates. In addition, due to the possibility for these countries to sell certificates in the EU ETS, emission reductions in the EU-27 decrease which results in lower output losses in the energy intensive industries. Also in China welfare losses are moderate if the local cement sector commits to specific reduction targets. The possibility to sell emission certificates for the reduction efforts in the cement sector neutralizes adverse welfare effects which arise in the unilateral scenarios. This setup corresponds to a financial transfer from the EU to China that supports emission reduction efforts. Therefore, abatement can be achieved at lower efficiency costs than in the unilateral scenarios. The quantitative results for Mexico and Brazil differ slightly due to the smaller size of the sector in these economies and due to higher marginal abatement costs in these countries but remain valid in terms of qualitative aspects. The impact of emission reductions in the cement sectors in China, Mexico and Brazil on the worldwide emissions level is moderate. This is mainly due to the fact that carbon now leaks to regions and sectors that are not covered by an environmental regulation. Our results suggest that sectoral approaches can contribute to the reduction of global emissions, albeit to a small extent. This calls for the extension of sectoral approaches to further sectors and countries in order to fully exploit the efficiency gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Voigt & Victoria Alexeeva-Talebi & Andreas Löschel, 2012. "Macroeconomic Impacts of Sectoral Approaches: The Role of the Cement Sector in China, Mexico and Brazil," EcoMod2012 4213, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:002672:4213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Voigt_EcoMod2012_Macro_Impacts_SA_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolfgang Sterk & Bettina Wittneben, 2006. "Enhancing the clean development mechanism through sectoral approaches: definitions, applications and ways forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 271-287, September.
    2. Christoph Böhringer & Carsten Vogt, 2003. "Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 475-496, May.
    3. Szabo, Laszlo & Hidalgo, Ignacio & Ciscar, Juan Carlos & Soria, Antonio, 2006. "CO2 emission trading within the European Union and Annex B countries: the cement industry case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 72-87, January.
    4. Bohringer, Christoph & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2008. "Combining bottom-up and top-down," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 574-596, March.
    5. André Aasrud & Richard Baron & Barbara Buchner & Kevin McCall, 2009. "Sectoral Market Mechanisms: Issues for Negotiation and Domestic Implementation," OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group Papers 2009/5, OECD Publishing.
    6. Christoph Böhringer & Carsten Vogt, 2003. "Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 475-496, May.
    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. Sagar Roy & Smruti Ragunath, 2018. "Emerging Membrane Technologies for Water and Energy Sustainability: Future Prospects, Constraints and Challenges," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-32, November.
    2. Ralph Winkler, 2008. "Optimal compliance with emission constraints: dynamic characteristics and the choice of technique," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 411-432, April.
    3. Gersbach, Hans & Winkler, Ralph, 2011. "International emission permit markets with refunding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 759-773, August.
    4. Kounetas, Konstantinos & Zervopoulos, Panagiotis D., 2019. "A cross-country evaluation of environmental performance: Is there a convergence-divergence pattern in technology gaps?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1136-1148.
    5. Clemens Heuson & Wolfgang Peters & Reimund Schwarze & Anna-Katharina Topp, 2015. "Investment and Adaptation as Commitment Devices in Climate Politics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(4), pages 769-790, December.
    6. Rahel Aichele, 2013. "Trade, Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage - Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 49.
    7. Théophile, AZOMAHOU & Raouf, BOUCEKKINE & Phu, NUYEN VAN, 2003. "Energy consumption, technological progress and economic policy," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2003025, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    8. Sathaye, Jayant A. & Anger, Niels, 2008. "Reducing Deforestation and Trading Emissions: Economic Implications for the post-Kyoto Carbon Market," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-016, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Fulton, Murray E. & Cule, Monika & Weersink, Alfons, 2005. "Greenhouse Gas Policy and Canadian Agriculture," CAFRI: Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, issue 6, pages 1-11, January.
    10. Carsten Vogt, 2003. "Russia’s reluctance to ratify Kyoto: an economic analysis," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 38(6), pages 346-349, November.
    11. Peterson, Everett B. & Schleich, Joachim & Duscha, Vicki, 2011. "Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3697-3708, June.
    12. Haites, Erik & Missfeldt, Fanny, 2004. "Liquidity implications of a commitment period reserve at national and global levels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 845-868, September.
    13. Anger, Niels & Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf, 2007. "Macroeconomic Impacts of the Clean Development Mechanism: The Role of Investment Barriers and Regulations," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-026, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Hans Gersbach, 2007. "The Global Refunding System and Climate Change," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 07/62, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    15. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Smoke and Mirrors: The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 29(4), pages 397-415, December.
    16. Quinn, Barry & Gallagher, Ronan & Kuosmanen, Timo, 2021. "Lurking in the Shadows: The Impact of Emissions Target Setting on Carbon Pricing and Environmental Efficiency," QBS Working Paper Series 2021/05, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    17. Rolf Golombek & Michael Hoel, 2011. "International Cooperation on Climate-friendly Technologies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 473-490, August.
    18. Lemelin, André & Savard, Luc, 2022. "What do CGE models have to say about fiscal reform?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 758-774.
    19. Buchholz, Wolfgang & Peters, Wolfgang & Ufert, Aneta, 2018. "International environmental agreements on climate protection: A Binary choice model with heterogeneous agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 191-205.
    20. Karen Pittel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2012. "Transitions in the negotiations on climate change: from prisoner’s dilemma to chicken and beyond," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 23-39, March.

    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:ekd:002672:4213. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.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.