[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/009007/9449.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How large and uncertain are costs of 2030 emission reduction target for the European countries? Sensitivity analysis in a global CGE model

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Zachlod-Jelec
  • Jakub Boratyński
Abstract
CGE models are popular tools for assessing the impact of economic (climate and energy, specifically) policy on the economy, yet the simulation results are sensitive to parameters assumed by the modeler. However, econometric evidence on those parameters available in the literature is often scarce or ambiguous, as well as there is difficulty in finding results tailored to a specific CGE model (with its specific sectoral and regional disaggregation, nesting structure production functions etc). In practice this makes a choice of parameter values more or less arbitrary, and in fact in many cases the modelers simply follow the perhaps equally arbitrary choices made by other authors. Although such an approach does not imply that simulation results are meaningless, it calls for at least a clear communication of uncertainties to the reader. In the paper we present mean results of simulation of the 2030 emission reduction target for the EU countries together with standard deviations of mean results. We also discuss sources of parameters uncertainty. In order to investigate model parameters uncertainty we conduct systematic sensitivity analysis based on Stroud's (1957) Gaussian quadratures in a static global CGE model. By “systematic” we mean that alternative values of parameters are picked in a systematic way, i.e. they are determined by means of some specific method in order to explore the whole domain of plausible values. Our preliminary findings can be summarized as follows. First, uncertainty of model simulation results driven by the uncertainty in assumed elasticities is quite remarkable with double-digit variation coefficients in many cases. Second, the uncertainty is larger with respect to non-energy parameters than to energy parameters. Finally, there is a clear pattern with mostly the New Member States experiencing relatively high cost of emissions reduction in terms of GDP and consumption loss. In the extreme case of strictly rigid energy mixes (no substitution at an industry level), these costs roughly double.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Zachlod-Jelec & Jakub Boratyński, 2016. "How large and uncertain are costs of 2030 emission reduction target for the European countries? Sensitivity analysis in a global CGE model," EcoMod2016 9449, EcoMod.
    • Handle: RePEc:ekd:009007:9449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Zachlod_Jelec_Boratynski_Sensitivity_Ecomod2016_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Cleveland & Daniela Soleri & Paul Thompson & Roger Paden & Jerald Milanich & John Lyon & George Axinn, 1988. "Book reviews," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 5(3), pages 71-95, June.
    2. Urga, Giovanni & Walters, Chris, 2003. "Dynamic translog and linear logit models: a factor demand analysis of interfuel substitution in US industrial energy demand," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Hertel, Thomas & Hummels, David & Ivanic, Maros & Keeney, Roman, 2007. "How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 611-635, July.
    4. Jaccard, Mark & Bataille, Chris, 2000. "Estimating future elasticities of substitution for the rebound debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 451-455, June.
    5. Horridge, Mark & Pearson, Ken, 2011. "Systematic Sensitivity Analysis with Respect to Correlated Variations in Parameters and Shocks," Technical Papers 283429, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Marie Hyland and Stefanie Haller, 2018. "Firm-level Estimates of Fuel Substitution: An Application to Carbon Pricing," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 6).
    7. Koesler, Simon & Schymura, Michael, 2012. "Substitution elasticities in a CES production framework: An empirical analysis on the basis of non-linear least squares estimations," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-007, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Steve Sorrell, 2014. "Energy Substitution, Technical Change and Rebound Effects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-24, April.
    9. Ma, Chunbo & Stern, David I., 2016. "Long-run estimates of interfuel and interfactor elasticities," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 114-130.
    10. Thompson, Peter & Taylor, Timothy G, 1995. "The Capital-Energy Substitutability Debate: A New Look," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(3), pages 565-569, August.
    11. Németh, Gabriella & Szabó, László & Ciscar, Juan-Carlos, 2011. "Estimation of Armington elasticities in a CGE economy-energy-environment model for Europe," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1993-1999, July.
    12. van der Werf, Edwin, 2008. "Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2964-2979, November.
    13. Surender Kumar & Hidemichi Fujii & Shunsuke Managi, 2015. "Substitute or complement? Assessing renewable and nonrenewable energy in OECD countries," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(14), pages 1438-1459, March.
    14. Kemfert, Claudia, 1998. "Estimated substitution elasticities of a nested CES production function approach for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 249-264, June.
    15. Mika Saito, 2004. "Armington elasticities in intermediate inputs trade: a problem in using multilateral trade data," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(4), pages 1097-1117, November.
    16. Arne Henningsen & Géraldine Henningsen, 2011. "Econometric Estimation of the “Constant Elasticity of Substitution" Function in R: Package micEconCES," IFRO Working Paper 2011/9, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Yi, Feng, 2000. "Dynamic energy-demand models: a comparison," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 285-297, April.
    18. Sooriyakumar Krishnapillai & Henry Thompson, 2012. "Cross Section Translog Production and Elasticity of Substitution in U.S. Manufacturing Industry," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 2(2), pages 50-54.
    19. Jones, Clifton T, 1995. "A Dynamic Analysis of Interfuel Substitution in U.S. Industrial Energy Demand," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(4), pages 459-465, October.
    20. Ha, Soo Jung & Lange, Ian & Lecca, Patrizio & Turner, Karen, 2012. "Econometric estimation of nested production functions and testing in a computable general equilibrium analysis of economy-wide rebound effec ts," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-08, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    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. Michal Antoszewski, 2017. "Panel estimation of sectoral substitution elasticities for CES production functions," EcoMod2017 10160, EcoMod.

    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. Zachlod-Jelec, Magdalena & Boratynski, Jakub, 2016. "How large and uncertain are costs of 2030 GHG emissions reduction target for the European countries? Sensitivity analysis in a global CGE model," MF Working Papers 26, Ministry of Finance in Poland.
    2. Michal Antoszewski, 2017. "Panel estimation of sectoral substitution elasticities for CES production functions," EcoMod2017 10160, EcoMod.
    3. Matthew K. Heun & João Santos & Paul E. Brockway & Randall Pruim & Tiago Domingos & Marco Sakai, 2017. "From Theory to Econometrics to Energy Policy: Cautionary Tales for Policymaking Using Aggregate Production Functions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-44, February.
    4. Keting Shen & John Whalley, 2013. "Capital-Labor-Energy Substitution in Nested CES Production Functions for China," NBER Working Papers 19104, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Paul E. Brockway & Matthew K. Heun & João Santos & John R. Barrett, 2017. "Energy-Extended CES Aggregate Production: Current Aspects of Their Specification and Econometric Estimation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-23, February.
    6. He, Yongda & Lin, Boqiang, 2019. "Heterogeneity and asymmetric effects in energy resources allocation of the manufacturing sectors in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1019-1035.
    7. Beckman, Jayson & Hertel, Thomas & Tyner, Wallace, 2011. "Validating energy-oriented CGE models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 799-806, September.
    8. Dixon, Peter B. & Rimmer, Maureen T., 2009. "Simulating the U.S. recession," Conference papers 331862, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Antoszewski, Michał, 2019. "Wide-range estimation of various substitution elasticities for CES production functions at the sectoral level," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 272-289.
    10. Malliet, Paul & Reynès, Frédéric G., 2022. "Empirical estimates of the elasticity of substitution of a KLEM production function without nesting constraints: The case of the Variable Output Elasticity-Cobb Douglas," Conference papers 333423, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Elena Paglialunga, 2019. "Capital–energy substitutability in manufacturing sectors: methodological and policy implications," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 157-182, June.
    12. Thompson, Henry, 2006. "The applied theory of energy substitution in production," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 410-425, July.
    13. Papageorgiou, Chris & Saam, Marianne & Schulte, Patrick, 2013. "Elasticity of substitution between clean and dirty energy inputs: A macroeconomic perspective," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-087, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Zhu, Xuehong & Zeng, Anqi & Zhong, Meirui & Huang, Jianbai, 2021. "Elasticity of substitution and biased technical change in the CES production function for China's metal-intensive industries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    15. Considine, Timothy J., 2018. "Estimating concave substitution possibilities with non-stationary data using the dynamic linear logit demand model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 22-30.
    16. Valeria Costantini & Elena Paglialunga, 2014. "Elasticity of substitution in capital-energy relationships: how central is a sector-based panel estimation approach?," SEEDS Working Papers 1314, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    17. Aaron B. Gertz & James B. Davies & Samantha L. Black, 2019. "A CGE Framework for Modeling the Economics of Flooding and Recovery in a Major Urban Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1314-1341, June.
    18. M. Chepeliev, 2015. "Econometric estimation of capital-labor substitution elasticities for Ukrainian CGE model," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 2, pages 33-46.
    19. Olekseyuk, Zoryana & Schürenberg-Frosch, Hannah, 2016. "Are Armington elasticities different across countries and sectors? A European study," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 328-342.
    20. Zha, Donglan & Zhou, Dequn, 2014. "The elasticity of substitution and the way of nesting CES production function with emphasis on energy input," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 793-798.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Union countries; General equilibrium modeling (CGE); Energy and environmental policy;
    All these keywords.

    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:ekd:009007:9449. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.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.