IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332979.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts of Bioelectricity from Forest Biomass when Forest Producers have Comparative Advantage: the case of Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Alves, Gabriel
  • Gurgel, Angelo

Abstract

Forest biomass has been used as an energy source since the begging of human king. Compared with other countries, Brazil has a natural advantage to produce commercial forests. The bioelectricity in the country, however, derive mostly from sugarcane industry. This study aimed to understand the impacts and pathways of an eventual expansion of forest plantations dedicated to electricity production on the domestic economy, especially on the forestry, energy and other competitors’ sectors. We employ a dynamic-recursive computable general equilibrium model of world economy to project alternative scenarios about forest bioenergy expansion in Brazil. The results suggest that the increase in forest biomass for electric power generation is highly dependent on governmental incentives and technological advances. A consistent participation of the forest biomass in the grid has almost no economic impacts on other sectors using forest based inputs, such as pulp and paper and iron and steel industries, neither on land use competitor sectors, like the agricultural sector. Even with very high public incentives to increase forest biomass, the impacts on GDP are negligible. Land use dynamics from larger increase in planted forest will not influence deforestation rates of native vegetation. Therefore, although the upscaling of forest biomass to bioelectricity in Brazil has very low negative impacts on other economic sectors, GDP or land use dynamics, only governmental incentives will ensure the growth and strengthening of forest bioelectricity as an energy source in the country.

Suggested Citation

  • Alves, Gabriel & Gurgel, Angelo, 2018. "Economic Impacts of Bioelectricity from Forest Biomass when Forest Producers have Comparative Advantage: the case of Brazil," Conference papers 332979, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332979/files/8966.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piermartini, Roberta & Teh, Robert, 2005. "Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy," WTO Discussion Papers 10, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    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. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    2. Tomasz Iwanow & Colin Kirkpatrick, 2007. "Trade facilitation, regulatory quality and export performance," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 735-753.
    3. Kozyrevа Оlena & Sahaidak-Nikitiuk Rita & Yevtushenko Viktoriia & Derenskaya Yana & Ievtushenko Ganna, 2017. "Research of the level of socio-economic development of Ukrainian regions," Technology audit and production reserves, 4(36) 2017, Socionet;Technology audit and production reserves, vol. 4(5(36)), pages 4-15.
    4. Peters, Glen, 2008. "Reassessing Carbon Leakage," Conference papers 331753, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Gregory Corcos & Massimo Del Gatto & Giordano Mion & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2012. "Productivity and Firm Selection: Quantifying the ‘New’ Gains from Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(561), pages 754-798, June.
    6. Fuenfzig, Michael, 2016. "A Quantitative Assessment of the Proposed China-Georgia Free Trade Agreement," MPRA Paper 78040, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Soo Yuen Chong & Jung Hur, 2007. "Overlapping Free Trade Agreements of Singapore-USA-Japan : A Computational Analysis," Trade Working Papers 21931, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    8. Cooke, Edgar F A, 2011. "The impact of trade preferences on exports of developing countries: the case of the AGOA and CBI preferences of the USA," MPRA Paper 31439, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Sudip Ranjan Basu, 2008. "Does WTO accession affect domestic economic policies and institutions?," IHEID Working Papers 03-2008, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    10. Giammetti, Raffaele, 2019. "Tariffs, Domestic Import Substitution and Trade Diversion in Input-Output Production Networks: how to deal with Brexit," MPRA Paper 93229, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., 2014. "European integration and the gains from trade," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60500, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Giordano, Paolo & Li, Kun, 2012. "An Updated Assessment of the Trade and Poverty Nexus in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 4209, Inter-American Development Bank.
    13. Abbott, Philip & Bentzen, Jeanet & Tarp, Finn, 2006. "Vietnam’s Accession to the WTO: Lessons from Past Trade Agreements," MPRA Paper 61679, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Isabel Teichmann, 2016. "CGE-Based Methods to Measure the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Poverty," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 100, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Swati Dhingra & Hanwei Huang & Gianmarco Ottaviano & João Paulo Pessoa & Thomas Sampson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 32(92), pages 651-705.
    16. Clive George & Colin Kirkpatrick, 2008. "Sustainability Impact Assessment Of Trade Agreements: From Public Dialogue To International Governance," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 67-89.
    17. Anselm Mattes & Philipp Meinen & Ferdinand Pavel, 2012. "Goods Follow Bytes: The Impact of ICT on EU Trade," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1182, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Betina Dimaranan & Elena Ianchovichina & Will Martin, 2009. "How will growth in China and India affect the world economy?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(3), pages 551-571, October.
    19. Jansen, Marion, 2006. "Services Trade Liberalization at the Regional Level: Does Southern and Eastern Africa Stand to Gain from EPA Negotiations?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5800, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Susanna Kinnman & Magnus Lodefalk, 2007. "What is at Stake in the Doha Round?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 1305-1325, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:332979. 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.