IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331051.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Costs of Green House Gas Emission Reductions in the European and Japanese Economies under Alternative Emission Trading Regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Hamasaki, Hiroshi
  • Truong, Truong P.

Abstract

Following the successful outcomes of the COP6 meeting in Bonn in July 2001, it is likely that the path to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol may still be well alive, despite the withdrawal of the US from the Protocol in March 2001. Among the remaining parties, the European Union and Japan are major players. In this paper, we look at the costs of achieving the Kyoto Protocol targets for the EU and Japanese economies under various assumptions. First we consider the case where the US remains committed to the Kyoto targets, with and without emission trading with the rest of the Annex 1 countries. Although this scenario is unrealistic, it serves to highlight the gains and losses from US participation in international emission trading. Next we consider the case when the US withdraws from its Kyoto targets altogether. Clearly, this will have a direct and significant effect on the overall Kyoto aggregate. The ‘indirect’ effects on Annex 1 countries, however, are relatively small. Finally, we also experimented with various emission trading regimes within the Annex 1 countries, where the total level of international emission trading is subject to an overall limit to satisfy the so-called supplementary provisions. It turns out that these provisions will have a significant effect on the macroeconomic and international trade variables of these countries but will have only a small effect the marginal cost of emission abatement as expected. We use the latest GTAP version 5 data base and the latest GTAP-E model for our experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamasaki, Hiroshi & Truong, Truong P., 2002. "The Costs of Green House Gas Emission Reductions in the European and Japanese Economies under Alternative Emission Trading Regimes," Conference papers 331051, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331051/files/942.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burfisher, Mary E., 2001. "The Road Ahead: Agricultural Policy Reform In The Wto -- Summary Report," Agricultural Economic Reports 34067, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Oskam, Arie J. & Meester, Gerrit, 2006. "How useful is the PSE in determining agricultural support?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 123-141, April.
    2. Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Beghin, John C. & de Cara, Stephane & Fang, Cheng & Isik, Murat & Matthey, Holger, 2003. "Agricultural Markets Liberalization And The Doha Round," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25875, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Laborde, David & Le Cacheux, Jacques, 2003. "Price and Welfare Effects of Agricultural Liberalization with Imperfect Competition in Food Industries and Trade," Conference papers 331155, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    4. Surabhi Mittal, 2007. "OECD Agricultural Trade Reforms Impact On India's Prces and Producer's Welfare," Working Papers id:1072, eSocialSciences.
    5. Beckman, Jayson, 2021. "Reforming Market Access in Agricultural Trade: Tariff Removal and the Trade Facilitation Agreement," USDA Miscellaneous 310408, United States Department of Agriculture.
    6. John C. Beghin & David Roland-Holst & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2002. "Global Agricultural Trade and the Doha Round: What are the Implications for North and South?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-wp308, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Hess, Sebastian & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2007. "Assessing general and partial equilibrium simulations of Doha round outcomes using meta-analysis," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 67, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Gloria O. Pasadilla, 2007. "Preferential trading agreements and agricultural liberalization in East and South-East Asia," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Studies in Trade and Investment - AGRICULTURAL TRADE - PLANTING THE SEEDS OF REGIONAL LIBERALIZATION IN ASIA, volume 60, pages 75-130, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    9. Surabhi MITTAL, 2009. "Will OECD Agricultural Trade Reforms Impact India's Crop Prices and Farmers Welfare?," EcoMod2009 21500067, EcoMod.
    10. Eidman, Vernon R., 2002. "The 2002 Farm Bill: A Step Forward Or A Step Backward?," Working Papers 14442, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    11. Ash, Ken, 2005. "Agricultural Policies in Selected OECD Countries: Opportunities for Reform," 2005 NAAMIC Workshop II: Agrifood Regulatory and Policy Integration under Stress 163859, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    12. Surabhi Mittal & Jeffrey J. Reimer, 2008. "Would Indian farmers benefit from liberalization of world cotton and sugar markets?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 301-312, May.
    13. Nilson de Paula & Huáscar Pessali, 2014. "Agricultural Trade Negotiations and the Challenges of Food Security," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 3(3), pages 313-335, December.
    14. Chaddad, Fabio R. & Aguilar, Patricia & Jank, Marcos S., 2005. "Agrifood Market Integration: Perspectives from Developing Countries," 2005 NAAMIC Workshop II: Agrifood Regulatory and Policy Integration under Stress 163860, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    15. repec:got:cegedp:67 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Devadoss, Stephen, 2002. "Domestic Support And Wto Negotiations From Developing Countries' Perspectives," 2002 Annual Meeting, July 28-31, 2002, Long Beach, California 36667, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Keith Walsh & Martina Brockmeier & Alan Matthews, 2005. "Implications of Domestic Support Disciplines for Further Agricultural Trade Liberalization," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp99, IIIS.
    18. Tsai, Diana, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Innovation: Evidence from Taiwan Manufacturing Industries," Conference papers 331005, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Posh Raj Pandey, 2003. "Agreement on Agriculture: Issues of Market Access for South Asian Countries," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 4(1), pages 19-40, March.
    20. Gordillo de Anda, Gustavo, 2004. "Food security and family farming," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    21. Salamon, P.B. & Herok, C.A., 2002. "Was bringen mögliche Ergebnisse der WTO-Verhandlungen und der Osterweiterung für den Milchmarkt?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:331051. 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.