This paper examines the impact of an international climate treaty on a single country—Norway. A disaggregate computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used. We discuss the treaty's effects on main macroeconomic indicators, economic growth, distributional impacts, the impact on pollutant emissions other than C02, and the secondary benefits of this reduction. The. results suggest that C02 emissions will decrease compared to the current level. The distributional impacts are modest. Increases in secondary benefits recoup almost one half of the loss in private consumption. We characterize the uncertainty of this estimate.
AlfsenK.H. (1992). “Use of macroeconomic models in analyses of environmental problems in Norway and consequences for environmental statistics.” Statistical Journal9 (1): 51-72.
2.
AlfsenK.H.BrendemoenA.GlomsradS. (1992). “Benefits from climate policies: Some tentative calculations.” Discussion Paper no 69, Statistics Norway.
3.
BergmanL. (1991). “General Equilibrium effects of environmental policy: An AGE- modelling approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics1 (1): 43-61.
4.
BurniauxJ.M. (1992). “The costs of reducing CO2 emissions: Evidence from GREEN.” Economics Department Working Paper no 115, OECD, Paris.
5.
EdmondsJ.ReillyJ. (1983). “Global energy and C02 to the year 2050.” The Energy Journal4 (3): 21-47.
6.
GaskinD.W.WeyantJ.P. (1993). “Model comparisons of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions.” American Economic Review83 (2): 318-23.
7.
GlomsrodS.VennemoH.JohnsenT. (1990). “Stabilization of CO2: A AGE assessment.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics94 (1): 53-69.
8.
HoellerP.DeanA.NicolaisenJ. (1991). “Economics and the Environment: A survey of Issues and Policy Options.” OECD Economic Studies 16, Paris.
9.
HolmoyE. (1992). “The structure and working of MSG-5, an applied general equilibrium model of the Norwegian economy.” In L. Bergman and O. Olsen eds., Nordic Macroeconomic Models. Contributions to Economic Analysis no.210. North Holland, pp.199-236.
10.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1990). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press.
11.
JorgensonD.W.WilcoxenP.J. (1992). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The cost of different goals. In J.R. Moroney ed., Advances in the Economics of Energy and Natural Resources, Vol. 7, JAI Press, pp.125-158.
12.
KouvaritakisN. (1990). “Policy measures and their impact on CO2: emissions an accumulations.” IEA.
13.
ManneA.S.RichelsR.G. (1990). “CO2 emission limits: A economic cost analysis for the USA.” The Energy Journal12 (1): 51-74.
14.
ManneA.S.RichelsR.G. (1991). “Global C02 emissions reductions - the impact of rising energy costs.” The Energy Journal12 (1): 87-107.
15.
MintzerI.M. (1987). “A matter of Degrees: The potential for Controlling the Greenhouse Effect”. Research Report #5, World Resource Institute, Washington DC.
16.
NordhausW.D. (1977). “Economic growth and climate: The carbon dioxide problem”. American Economic Review 67 (1): 341-46.
17.
NordhausW.D. (1991). “The cost of slowing climate change: A survey.” The Energy Journal12 (1): 37-65.
18.
NordhausW.D. (1993). “Optimal Greenhouse-gas reductions and tax-policy in the ”DICE“ model.” American Economic Review83 (2): 313-17.
19.
ReillyJ.M.EdmondsJ. A.GardnerR.H.BrenkertA.L. (1987).“Uncertainty Analysis of the IEA/ORAU C02 Emissions Model.” The Energy Journal8 (3): 1-29.
WhalleyJ.WigleR. (1991). “The International Incidence on Carbon Taxes.” InR. Dornbusch and J.M. Poterba, eds., Global Warming. Economic Policy Responses. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
