IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2014s-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

General Equilibrium Effects of Green Technological Progress

Author

Listed:
  • Ngo Van Long
  • Frank Staehler

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that technological progress in production of renewable energy can influence the extraction path of fossil fuels indirectly by a change in the equilibrium interest rate. We show in a simple model that the indirect effect can be so strong that first-period or even aggregate extraction levels rise with technological progress. Cet article démontre que les progrès technologiques dans la production d'énergie renouvelable peut influencer la trajectoire de l'extraction de combustibles fossiles indirectement par un changement dans le taux d'intérêt d'équilibre. Nous montrons dans un modèle simple que l'effet indirect peut être si fort que les niveaux d'extraction augmentent avec le progrès technologique.

Suggested Citation

  • Ngo Van Long & Frank Staehler, 2014. "General Equilibrium Effects of Green Technological Progress," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-16, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2014s-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2014s-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quentin Grafton, R. & Kompas, Tom & Van Long, Ngo, 2012. "Substitution between biofuels and fossil fuels: Is there a green paradox?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 328-341.
    2. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Long, Ngo Van & To, Hang, 2014. "US biofuels subsidies and CO2 emissions: An empirical test for a weak and a strong green paradox," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 550-555.
    3. Heinz Welsch & Frank Stähler, 1990. "On externalities related to the use of exhaustible resources," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 177-195, June.
    4. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2011. "Carbon Leakage, The Green Paradox, And Perfect Future Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(3), pages 767-805, August.
    5. Di Maria, Corrado & Lange, Ian & van der Werf, Edwin, 2014. "Should we be worried about the green paradox? Announcement effects of the Acid Rain Program," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 143-162.
    6. Hoel, Michael, 1983. "Monopoly resource extractions under the presence of predetermined substitute production," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 201-212, June.
    7. Hoel, Michael, 1978. "Resource extraction, substitute production, and monopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 28-37, October.
    8. van der Ploeg, Frederick & Withagen, Cees, 2012. "Is there really a green paradox?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 342-363.
    9. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1981. "Resource Depletion under Technological Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 85-104, January.
    10. Hans-Werner Sinn, 2008. "Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 15(4), pages 360-394, August.
    11. Hoel, Michael, 2011. "The Green Paradox and Greenhouse Gas Reducing Investments," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 353-379, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Natural Resources; Technical progress; The Green Paradox; Ressources naturelles; Progrès technologique; Le Paradoxe Vert;

    JEL classification:

    • Q31 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cir:cirwor:2014s-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.