Climate policy in Western Europe and avoided costs of air pollution control
Abatement of CO2 emissions will be accompanied by reduced air pollutant emissions such as particulate matter (PM), SO2, and NOx. This, in turn, will reduce the need for end of pipe (EOP) pollution control technologies to meet future air quality targets. This dynamic could put more stringent air quality goals within reach, and increase the political feasibility of climate policy. This paper presents a CGE model that has been modified to include the emissions and EOP abatement of PM, SO2, and NOx from stationary sources in the EU-17. Emissions of pollutants are modeled as fixed-factor complementary inputs to their associated source. Abatement in each sector is modeled as a substitution between the pollutants and discrete abatement technologies, each of which is sector-specific and characterized by a marginal abatement cost and technical capacity constraint. Scenarios are run to 2020, to assess the costs and co-benefits of simultaneous air quality and climate policies. We find that under the Kyoto Protocol in 2010, the welfare cost of pollution control is reduced by 16% compared to the baseline, effectively offsetting the cost of CO2 abatement by 15%. The co-benefit results depend heavily on policy choices, and their magnitude relative to total costs is likely to decline as greenhouse targets become more ambitious. In our scenarios, pollution control cost savings range from 1.3 to 20% in 2020, yielding a climate cost offset range of 0.2 to 3.9%. The CO2 credit imports allowed by the EU via the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) offer a total savings of $9.7bn in 2020, but only need to be compensated by an additional $0.3-0.4bn in domestic pollution control from stationary sources.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Frei, Christoph W. & Haldi, Pierre-Andre & Sarlos, Gerard, 2003. "Dynamic formulation of a top-down and bottom-up merging energy policy model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1017-1031, August.
- Rutherford, Thomas F., 1995. "Extension of GAMS for complementarity problems arising in applied economic analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 1299-1324, November.
- Nestor, Deborah Vaughn & Pasurka Jr, Carl A, 1995. "CGE model of pollution abatement processes for assessing the economic effects of environmental policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 53-59, January.
- Lars Bergman, 1991. "General equilibrium effects of environmental policy: A CGE-modeling approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(1), pages 43-61, March.
- Gerlagh, Reyer & Dellink, Rob & Hofkes, Marjan & Verbruggen, Harmen, 2002. "A measure of sustainable national income for the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 157-174, April.
- Ekins, Paul, 1996. "How large a carbon tax is justified by the secondary benefits of CO2 abatement?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 161-187, June.
- Ianchovichina, Elena & Robert McDougall, 2000. "Theoretical Structure of Dynamic GTAP," GTAP Technical Papers 480, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
- Krupnick, Alan & Morgenstern, Richard & Zhang, Xuehua, 2002. "The Ancillary Carbon Benefits of SO2 Reductions from a Small-Boiler Policy in Taiyuan, PRC," Discussion Papers dp-02-54, Resources For the Future.
- Dellink, Rob & Hofkes, Marjan & van Ierland, Ekko & Verbruggen, Harmen, 2004. "Dynamic modelling of pollution abatement in a CGE framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 965-989, December.
- Aunan, Kristin & Fang, Jinghua & Vennemo, Haakon & Oye, Kenneth & Seip, Hans M., 2004. "Co-benefits of climate policy--lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 567-581, March.
- Syri, Sanna & Amann, Markus & Capros, Pantelis & Mantzos, Leonidas & Cofala, Janusz & Klimont, Zbigniew, 2001. "Low-CO2 energy pathways and regional air pollution in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 871-884, September.
- Albrecht, Johan & Francois, Delphine & Schoors, Koen, 2002. "A Shapley decomposition of carbon emissions without residuals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 727-736, July.
- David O’Connor & Fan Zhai & Kristin Aunan & Terje Berntsen & Haakon Vennemo, 2003. "Agricultural and Human Health Impacts of Climate Policy in China: A General Equilibrium Analysis with Special Reference to Guangdong," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 206, OECD Publishing.
- Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685.
- van Vuuren, D.P. & Cofala, J. & Eerens, H.E. & Oostenrijk, R. & Heyes, C. & Klimont, Z. & den Elzen, M.G.J. & Amann, M., 2006. "Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 444-460, March.
- Burtraw, Dallas & Toman, Michael, 1997. "The Benefits of Reduced Air Pollutants in the U.S. from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies," Discussion Papers dp-98-01-rev, Resources For the Future.