IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-08-10-efd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

“Co-benefits†of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in China: An Integrated Top-Down and Bottom-Up Modeling Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, Jing
  • Ho, Mun
  • Jorgenson, Dale

Abstract

Many greenhouse gas mitigation policies that shift fossil fuel use are accompanied by some hidden environmental benefits, so called “co-benefits†or “ancillary benefits.†Since these “co-benefits†are often overlooked by government policy makers, there tends to be a bias in the policy analysis of various environmental policies and government strategies on global warming. To achieve a plausible estimate of the magnitude of these co-benefits of potential carbon reduction policies in China, this paper applied an integrated modeling approach by combining a top-down recursive dynamic CGE (computable general equilibrium) model with a bottom-up electricity sector model, to simulate three macro-level environmental tax policies: output tax, fuel tax, and carbon tax, as well as national-sectoral mixed policies (a national tax policy with emission caps in the electricity sector). Based on the integrated model simulations, the estimated ancillary health benefits from the three taxes are quite significant. Under the revenue neutrality condition, it is very likely that China would obtain a “win-win†solution with respect to carbon mitigation, especially if these co-benefits are included in the policy-making cost-benefit analysis. The integrated modeling approach also provides a useful way to examine a complicated mixed policy, such as a national tax policy combined with sectoral-level emission cap policies. In order to achieve both objectives regarding local co-benefits and induce technology change, this model suggests that the preferred policy for China is either a national level fuel tax or carbon tax imposed at the national level with carbon emission caps in the electricity sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Cao, Jing & Ho, Mun & Jorgenson, Dale, 2008. "“Co-benefits†of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in China: An Integrated Top-Down and Bottom-Up Modeling Analysis," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-10-efd, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-08-10-efd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/EfD-DP-08-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    2. Kenneth C. Hoffman & Dale W. Jorgenson, 1977. "Economic and Technological Models for Evaluation of Energy Policy," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 444-466, Autumn.
    3. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas, 1997. "Electricity restructuring and regional air pollution," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 139-174, March.
    4. Jing Cao, 2004. "Options for Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Guiyang, China: A Cost-Ancillary Benefit Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2004081, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Aug 2004.
    5. Pizer, William A. & Burtraw, Dallas & Harrington, Winston & Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N., 2005. "Modeling Economywide versus Sectoral Climate Policies Using Combined Aggregate-Sectoral Models," Discussion Papers 10502, Resources for the Future.
    6. Mun S. Ho & Chris P. Nielsen (ed.), 2007. "Clearing the Air: The Health and Economic Damages of Air Pollution in China," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262083582, December.
    7. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    8. Boyd Roy & Krutilla Kerry & Viscusi W. Kip, 1995. "Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument to Reduce CO2 Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-24, July.
    9. Koopmans, Carl C. & te Velde, Dirk Willem, 2001. "Bridging the energy efficiency gap: using bottom-up information in a top-down energy demand model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 57-75, January.
    10. Klinge Jacobsen, Henrik, 1998. "Integrating the bottom-up and top-down approach to energy-economy modelling: the case of Denmark," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 443-461, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Gielen, Dolf & Changhong, Chen, 2001. "The CO2 emission reduction benefits of Chinese energy policies and environmental policies:: A case study for Shanghai, period 1995-2020," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 257-270, November.
    13. McFarland, J. R. & Reilly, J. M. & Herzog, H. J., 2004. "Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 685-707, July.
    14. Wilson, Deborah & Swisher, Joel, 1993. "Exploring the gap : Top-down versus bottom-up analyses of the cost of mitigating global warming," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 249-263, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:gii:giihei:ciesrp:cies_rp_26 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Dirk T.G. Rübbelke & Nathan Rive, 2008. "Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection," Working Papers 2008.93, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Muller, Nicholas Z., 2012. "The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-722.
    4. Chiara Ravetti & Timothy Swanson & Mu Quan & Xuxuan Xie & Zhang Shiqiu, 2014. "Ancillary Benefits of GHG Abatement Policies in Developing Countries: A literature Survey," CIES Research Paper series 26-2014, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.

    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. Rubbelke, Dirk T.G. & Rive, Nathan, 2008. "Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 46650, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Pittel, Karen & Rübbelke, Dirk T.G., 2008. "Climate policy and ancillary benefits: A survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 210-220, December.
    3. Halkos, George, 2014. "The Economics of Climate Change Policy: Critical review and future policy directions," MPRA Paper 56841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Takeshita, Takayuki, 2012. "Assessing the co-benefits of CO2 mitigation on air pollutants emissions from road vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 225-237.
    5. Chris Bataille, Mark Jaccard, John Nyboer and Nic Rivers, 2006. "Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 93-112.
    6. Nic Rivers & Mark Jaccard, 2005. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 83-106.
    7. Park, Sang Yong & Yun, Bo-Yeong & Yun, Chang Yeol & Lee, Duk Hee & Choi, Dong Gu, 2016. "An analysis of the optimum renewable energy portfolio using the bottom–up model: Focusing on the electricity generation sector in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 319-329.
    8. Eoin Ó Broin & Érika Mata & Jonas Nässén & Filip Johnsson, 2015. "Quantification of the Energy Efficiency Gap in the Swedish Residential Sector," Post-Print hal-01219283, HAL.
    9. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10184 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Thierry Mayer, 2006. "Policy Coherence for Development: A Background Paper on Foreign Direct Investment," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 253, OECD Publishing.
    11. Milan Ščasný & Emanuele Massetti & Jan Melichar & Samuel Carrara, 2015. "Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 383-415, October.
    12. Dellink, Rob & van Ierland, Ekko, 2006. "Pollution abatement in the Netherlands: A dynamic applied general equilibrium assessment," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, February.
    13. Krook Riekkola, Anna & Ahlgren, Erik O. & Söderholm, Patrik, 2011. "Ancillary benefits of climate policy in a small open economy: The case of Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4985-4998, September.
    14. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    15. Horne, Matt & Jaccard, Mark & Tiedemann, Ken, 2005. "Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 59-77, January.
    16. Muller, Nicholas Z., 2012. "The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-722.
    17. Sergi, Brian & Azevedo, Inês & Xia, Tian & Davis, Alex & Xu, Jianhua, 2019. "Support for Emissions Reductions Based on Immediate and Long-term Pollution Exposure in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 26-33.
    18. Barker, Terry & Ekins, Paul & Foxon, Tim, 2007. "Macroeconomic effects of efficiency policies for energy-intensive industries: The case of the UK Climate Change Agreements, 2000-2010," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 760-778, July.
    19. Wei, Xinyang & Tong, Qing & Magill, Iain & Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & Betz, Regina, 2020. "Evaluation of potential co-benefits of air pollution control and climate mitigation policies for China's electricity sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Graham, Paul W. & Williams, David J., 2003. "Optimal technological choices in meeting Australian energy policy goals," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-712, November.
    21. Finus, Michael & Rubbelke, Dirk T G, 2008. "Coalition Formation and the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Co-benefits; climate change; CGE model; bottom-up model; top-down model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-08-10-efd. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.