Andreas Löschel

Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey

This paper provides an overview of the treatment of technological change in economic models of environmental policy. Numerous economic modeling studies have confirmed the sensitivity of mid- and long-run climate change mitigation cost and benefit projections to assumptions about technology costs. In general, technical progress is considered to be a noneconomic, exogenous variable in global climate change modeling. However, there is overwhelming evidence that technological change is not an exogenous variable but to an important degree endogenous, induced by needs and pressures. Hence, some environmenteconomy models treat technological change as endogenous, responding to socio-economic variables. Three main elements in models of technological innovation are: (i) corporate investment in research and development, (ii) spillovers from R&D, and (iii) technology learning, especially learning-by-doing. The incorporation of induced technological change in different types of environmental-economic models tends to reduce the costs of environmental policy, accelerates abatement and may lead to positive spillover and negative leakage.

Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game

International efforts to provide global public goods often face the challenges of coordinating national contributions and distributing costs equitably in the face of uncertainty, inequality, and free-riding incentives. In an experimental setting, we distribute endowments unequally among a group of people who can reach a fixed target sum through successive money contributions, knowing that if they fail, they will lose all their remaining money with 50% probability. In some treatments, we give players the option to communicate intended contributions. We find that inequality reduces the prospects of reaching the target but that communication increases success dramatically. Successful groups tend to eliminate inequality over the course of the game, with rich players signaling willingness to redistribute early on. Our results suggest that coordination-promoting institutions and early redistribution from richer to poorer nations are both decisive for the avoidance of global calamities, such as disruptive climate change.

Assessing Emission Regulation in Europe: An Interactive Simulation Approach

Implementation of an EU-wide emissions trading system by means of National Allocation Plans is at the core of European environmental policy agenda. Member States are faced with the problem of allocating their national emission budgets under the EU Burden Sharing Agreement between energy-intensive sectors that are eligible for international emissions trading and the remaining segments of their economies that will be subject to complementary domestic emission regulation. The country-specific segmentation of national emission budgets between trading sectors and non-trading sectors will determine the cost efficiency of the EU emissions trading system and the gains for each Member State vis-a-vis domestic abatement policies. We present an interactive simulation model where users can specify the design of National Allocation Plans for each EU Member State and then evaluate the induced economic effects. Our numerical framework is based on marginal abatement cost curves for (emissions) trading and non-trading sectors of the EU-15 economies. Illustrative simulations highlight the importance of a coordinated design of National Allocation Plans in order to avoid substantial excess costs of regulation and drastic burden shifting between nontrading and trading sectors.

Market power and hot air in international emissions trading: the impacts of US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol

Ten years after the initial Climate Change Convention from Rio in 1992 the industrialized world is finally likely to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which will impose legally binding greenhouse gas emission reductions on the developed world. However, the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force without the USA, which withdrew under President Bush in March 2001. Accounting for hot air and market power of the Former Soviet Union on emission permit markets, it is shown that US withdrawal has important consequences on environmental effectiveness, compliance costs, and excess costs of market power under the Kyoto Protocol. Non-compliance of the USA implies a dramatic decrease in environmental effectiveness as well as compliance costs of OECD countries whereas the Former Soviet Union and transitional economies in Eastern Europe suffer from a huge decline in permit sales revenues. Excess costs of market power in permit trade increase in relative terms, but decline substantially in absolute terms due to US withdrawal. Policy options are quantified to bypass the problems of hot air and market power through compensation mechanisms.

Climate Policy Beyond Kyoto: Quo Vadis? A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Based on Expert Judgements

Despite of the apparent failure of the Kyoto Protocol with respect to environmental effectiveness, it has established a broad international mechanism that might be able to provide a global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions during a second commitment period. In this paper we investigate the likely future of post-Kyoto policies. Our primary objective is to identify policy-relevant abatement scenarios and to quantify the associated economic implications across major world regions. Based on a cross-impact analysis we first evaluate an expert poll to select the most likely post-Kyoto climate policy scenarios. We then use a computable general equilibrium model to assess the economic implications of these key scenarios. We find that post-Kyoto agreements are likely to cover only small reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions with abatement duties predominantly assigned to the industrialized countries while developing countries do not make any commitments, but can sell emission abatement to the industrialized world. Equity rules to allocate abatement duties are mainly based on the sovereignty principle or ability-to-pay. Global adjustment costs arising from post-Kyoto policies are very moderate but fuel exporting countries are likely to face quite considerable costs because of adverse terms-of-trade effects on fossil fuel markets.

Designing an emissions trading scheme for China: An up-to-date climate policy assessment

We assess recent Chinese climate policy proposals in a multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model with a Chinese carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS). When the emissions intensity per GDP in 2020 is required to be 45% lower than in 2005, the model simulations indicate that the climate policy induced welfare loss in 2020, measured as the level of GDP and welfare in 2020 under climate policy relative to their level under business-as-usual (BAU) in the same year, is about 1%. The Chinese welfare loss in 2020 slightly increases in the Chinese rate of economic growth in 2020. When keeping the emissions target fixed at the 2020 level after 2020 in absolute terms, the welfare loss will reach about 2% in 2030. If China׳s annual economic growth rate is 0.5 percentage points higher (lower), the climate policy-induced welfare loss in 2030 will rise (decline) by about 0.5 percentage points. Full auctioning of carbon allowances results in very similar macroeconomic effects as free allocation, but full auctioning leads to higher reductions in output than free allocation for ETS sectors. Linking the Chinese to the European ETS and restricting the transfer volume to one third of the EU׳s reduction effort creates at best a small benefit for China, yet with smaller sectoral output reductions than auctioning. These results highlight the importance of designing the Chinese ETS wisely.

Carbon Taxes and Joint Implementation : An applied general equilibrium analysis for Germany and India

Germany has committed itself toreducing its carbon emissions by 25 percent in2005 as compared to 1990 emission levels. Toachieve this goal, the government has recentlylaunched an environmental tax reform whichentails a continuous increase in energy taxesin conjunction with a revenue-neutral cut innon-wage labor costs. This policy is supposedto yield a double dividend, reducing both, theproblem of global warming and high unemploymentrates. In addition to domestic actions,international treaties on climate protectionallow for the supplementary use of flexibleinstruments to exploit cheaper emissionreduction possibilities elsewhere. One concreteoption for Germany would be to enter jointimplementation (JI) with developing countriessuch as India where Germany pays emissionreduction abroad rather than meeting itsreduction target solely by domestic action. Inthis paper, we investigate whether anenvironmental tax reform cum JI providesemployment and overall efficiency gains ascompared to an environmental tax reformstand-alone. We address this question in theframework of a large-scale general equilibriummodel for Germany and India where Germany mayundertake JI with the Indian electricitysector. Our main finding is that JI offsetslargely the adverse effects of carbon emissionconstraints on the German economy. JIsignificantly lowers the level of carbon taxesand thus reduces the total costs of abatementas well as negative effects on labor demand. Inaddition, JI triggers direct investment demandfor energy efficient power plants produced inGermany. This provides positive employmenteffects and additional income for Germany. ForIndia, joint implementation equips itselectricity industry with scarce capital goodsleading to a more efficient power productionwith lower electricity prices for the economyand substantial welfare gains.

The value-added of sectoral disaggregation: Implications on competitive consequences of climate change policies

Global impact assessment of unilateral climate policies is commonly based on multi-sector, multi-region computable general equilibrium (CGE) models that are calibrated to consistent accounts of production, consumption, and bilateral trade flows. However, global economic databases such as GTAP treat energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries rather in aggregate, thereby missing potentially important details on the heterogeneity of these sectors. In this paper, we elaborate on the availability of data resources and methodological issues in disaggregating energy-intensive and trade-exposed sectors that receive larger attention in the public policy debate on unilateral emission regulation: non-ferrous metals, iron and steel and non-metallic minerals. Our sensitivity analysis revolves around three types of unobserved heterogeneity at the sub-sectoral level: trade elasticities, energy consumption and technology specifications. Drawing on the example of border tax adjustments, we find that for all given technology specifications and variation in energy shares, the biggest differences emerge from variations in Armington elasticities. Even moderate changes in Armington elasticities can alter the magnitude and the sign of the effects at the sectoral level. The implications of sub-sectoral disaggregation are not as pronounced for macroeconomic indicators and leakage as for sectoral indicators.

The EU Decarbonisation Roadmap 2050: What Way to Walk?

We carry out a detailed computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the EU Decarbonisation Roadmap 2050 on a macroeconomic and on a sectoral level. Herein, we study a Reference scenario that implements existing EU policies as well as 3 unilateral and 3 global climate action scenarios. We identify global climate action with international emissions trading and the full equalisation of CO2 prices across all (EU) sectors as an economically reasonable policy option to avoid additional costs of the Decarbonisation Roadmap to a large extent. This policy option may include CDM (Clean Development Mechanism in the sense of ‘where’-flexibility) in an extended form if there are countries without emissions caps. Moreover, we identify diverse sectoral effects in terms of output, investment, emissions and international competitiveness. We conclude that the successful realisation of the EU Decarbonisation Roadmap probably requires a wise and joint consideration of technology, policy design and sectoral aspects.

Climate Policy and the Problem of Competitiveness: Border Tax Adjustments or Integrated Emission Trading?

In the absence of an international agreement on climate policy, unilateral carbon abatement creates two problems: It tends to have a detrimental effect on domestic competitiveness, and it leads to an increase in carbon emissions abroad (leakage). This paper analyses two policies that have recently been proposed to mitigate these problems: Border tax adjustments (BTA) and integrated emission trading (IET). The former policy levies a quantity-based, the latter an emission based duty on imports from non-abating countries. In a stylised two-country model we demonstrate that the policies address both problems. However, BTA protects domestic competitiveness more effectively, while IET achieves a greater reduction in foreign emissions. A computational general equilibrium analysis of the unilateral abatement policy adopted by the European Union confirms our theoretical insights for the sectors covered by the offsetting measures. However, the implications for the competitiveness of noncovered sectors are negative. These two effects constitute the central trade-off in the implementation of both policies.