It has been suggested that eliminating coal production subsidies could substantially reduce global carbon emissions. This paper finds otherwise. Using a dynamic model of the international coal market, the paper investigates the consequences of subsidy elimination in a model incorporating sector specific capital constraints. In the short-run, following elimination of subsidies, producers with excess capacity divert domestic production into the export market, softening price increases. Over time, low cost exporters gain market share from the swing supplier, which further attenuates the market response to subsidy elimination. Given this market structure, production subsidy elimination in Europe and Japan may reduce world steam coal demand by as little as 0.5%, and global CO2 emissions by only 0.2
AbbeyD. S.KolstadC. D. (1983). “The structure of international steam coal markets.” Natural Resources Journal23: 859.
2.
AndersonK. (1995). “The political economy of coal subsidies in europe.” Energy Policy23(6): 485-496.
3.
AndersonK.McKibbinW. J. (1999). “Reducing coal subsidies and trade barriers: their contribution to greenhouse gas abatement.” Environment and Development Economics. forthcoming.
4.
AndersonK.PengC. Y. (1998, August). “Feeding and fueling china in the 21st century.” World Development26(8): 1413-1429.
5.
BeckT.JollyL.LoncarJ. (1991, June). “Supply response the Australian black coal industry.” ABARE. Canberra, Australia.
6.
BrookeA.KendrickD.MeerausA. (1997). GAMS: A User's Guide. Redwood City, Calif.: Scientific Press.
7.
BurniauxJ.MartinJ.NicolettiG.MartinsJ. O. (1991). Green... a multi-region dynamic general equilibrium model for quantifying the costs of curbing CO2 emissions: A technical manual. Technical report, Economics and Statistics Department, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
8.
CameronJ. (1997). International Coal Trade; the Evolution of a Global Market. OECD, Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
9.
EllermanA. D. (1995). “The world price of coal.” Energy Policy23 (6): 499-506.
10.
Energy Information Administration (1987, March). International coal trade model version 2 IICTM-2) user's guide. Technical report, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
11.
Energy Information Administration (1998). International energy outlook, 1998. Report DOE/IEA-0484(98), Department of Energy, Offce of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.
12.
Energy Information Agency (1989). “The impact of eliminating coal subsidies in western europe.” US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
13.
GrussH. (1997). Entwicklung und perspektiven fur angebot und nachfrage auf dem steinkohlenweltmarkt, (1996). Zeitschrift fur Energie Wirtschaft.
14.
HumphreysD. (1995). “A world price for coal - reply.” Energy Policy23 (6): 507-509.
15.
International Energy Agency (1994). Russian Energy Prices, Taxes and Costs. Paris, France: OECD.
16.
International Energy Agency (1997). Coal Information 1996. Paris, France: OECD.
17.
KolstadC. D.AbbeyD. S. (1984). “The effect of market conduct on international steam coal trade.” European Economic Review24: 39-59.
18.
LauM.I.PahlkeA.RutherfordT.F. (1997). “Modeling Economic Adjustment: A Primer in Dynamic General Equlibrium Analysis.” University of Colorado, Department of Economics Working Paper # 97-27.
19.
ManneA. S.RichelsR. G. (1993). Buying Greenhouse Insurance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
20.
McKibbinW.WilcoxenP. (1998). “The theoretical and empirical structure of the G-Cubed model.” Economic Modelling16(1): 123-48.
21.
NewberyD. M. (1995). “ Removing Coal Subsidies: Implications for European Electricity Markets.” Energy Policy23(6): 523-533.
22.
RadetzkiM. (1994). “Hard coal in Europe: perspectives on a global market distortion.” OPEC Review (Summer): 233-244.
23.
RadetzkiM. (1995). “Elimination of west European coal subsidies: Implications forcoal production and coal imports.” Energy Policy23(6): 509-518.
RutherfordT. F. (1995). “Extensions of GAMS for complementarity problems arising in applied economics.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 1299-1324.
26.
SteenblikR. P.CoroyannakisP. (1995). “Reform of coal policies in western and central Europe: Implications for the environment.” Energy Policy23(6): 537-553.
27.
WelschH. (1998, April). “Coal subsidization and nuclear phase-out in a general equilibrium model for Germany.” Energy Economics20(2): 203-222.
