This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Influence of Climate Change Considerations on Energy Policy: The Case of Russia

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Anil Markandya (FEEM and University of Bath)
Alexander Golub (Environmental Defense)
E. Strukova (Environmental Defense)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

To those working on climate change it is obvious that energy policy should be influenced by climate change considerations. The question that this paper seeks to answer is, to what extent do they influence policy and what contribution can a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of climate change options have on the formulation of that policy. We seek to understand this by looking in some detail at energy policy formulation in Russia. To do so it is necessary to look at the whole set of issues that determine energy policy. These include energy security, macroeconomic and uncertainty factors, local environmental issues and social issues. The analysis has been carried out for a specific case – that of the RF, where energy policy is currently under formulation to 2010. Two options have been looked at: a “High Coal” option, where there would be a substantial change in fuel mix away from gas to coal; and a “High Gas” option where the current fuel mix is retained and the increase in demand is met from all sources in proportion to current use. The analysis shows that, at international prices for fuels, the “High Coal” option is attractive. However, when we include the potential decline of price for natural gas in the European market, the relative preference for this option drops dramatically but it still remains the preferred option. When, account is also taken of the carbon benefits of the High Gas option, using plausible values for carbon, the attraction of the High Coal option is further reduced but not altered. When finally account is taken of the health associated with the lower use of coal in the High Gas option, the preference can be reversed but it requires a critical value for the health benefits. This critical value – at around $3,000 for a life year lost -- is plausible for the RF, if anything the actual value is probably higher. What the analysis shows is the need for a careful evaluation of the different factors determining energy policy. Among these is climate change. It is not the critical factor but it can be an important one. Perhaps more important are the environmental benefits that go with the lower carbon High Gas options.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/3303C8B0-4D3A-4510-8280-D6482F9C8352/915/9203.pdf
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (barbara racah)
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in its series Working Papers with number 2003.92.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2003.92

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan
Phone: 0039-2-52036934
Fax: 0039-2-52036946
Email:
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (barbara racah).

Related research
Keywords: Climate policy; Russia; Ancillary benefits;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
Q32 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development
D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
J60 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, and Vacancies - - - General

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Pittel, Karen & Rübbelke, Dirk T. G., 2007. "Climate Policy and Ancillary Benefits: A Survey and Integration into the Modelling of International Negotiations on Climate Change," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-064, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Each page is provided with a technical contact, in case something is not right with the supplied information. See under "publisher info".

This page was last updated on 2010-1-5.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.