Decomposing the impact of alternative technology sets on future carbon emissions growth
What are the drivers of future global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions growth and how would the availability of key energy supply technologies change their relative importance? In this paper, we apply a novel index number decomposition technique to the results of a multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model to quantify the influence of five factors on the growth of future carbon emissions: (1) growth in global economic activity; (2) shifts in the regional composition of gross world product; (3) shifts in the sectoral composition of regions' GDP; (4) changes in sectors' energy–output ratios; and (5) changes in the CO2 intensity of energy sources. We elucidate how the relative importance of these factors changes in response to the imposition of a global carbon tax and alternative assumptions about the future availability of key energy supply technologies. Rising global economic activity and shifts in regional composition put upward pressure on emissions while changes in energy and emission intensity and the sectoral output mix have attenuating effects. A global emission tax that increases over time slows economic expansion and shifts the fuel mix, with the most pronounced impacts on China, India, and Russia. Limited availability of carbon capture and storage, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation all lead to upward shifts in the long-run marginal abatement cost curve, causing some countries to choose to pay the tax rather than abate.
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.:
- Ang, B. W., 2004. "Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy:: which is the preferred method?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1131-1139, June.
- Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 755-787.
- Wing, Ian Sue, 2006. "The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3847-3869, December.
- Chris Bataille & Nic Rivers & Paulus Mau & Chris Joseph & Jian-Jun Tu, 2007. "How Malleable are the Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensities of the G7 Nations?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 145-170.
- Ang, B.W. & Liu, F.L., 2001. "A new energy decomposition method: perfect in decomposition and consistent in aggregation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 537-548.
- Ang, B. W., 2005. "The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 867-871, May.
- Calvin, Katherine & Clarke, Leon & Krey, Volker & Blanford, Geoffrey & Jiang, Kejun & Kainuma, Mikiko & Kriegler, Elmar & Luderer, Gunnar & Shukla, P.R., 2012. "The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: Results from the Asia modeling exercise," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 251-260.