Interest groups and experts debate the cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and policy-makers do not know whom to believe. The confusion stems from differing definitions of costs and divergent assumptions about key uncertainties, especially the role of policy in influencing the long-run evolution of technologies and consumer preferences. Analysis could be more helpful to policy-makers by combining technological explicitness with behavioral realism in hybrid models. With such a model, we demonstrate how GHG reduction cost estimates vary depending on whether the analyst focuses just on the financial costs of technologies or combines this with other relevant components of consumer and business preferences, such as option value and consumers’ surplus. We also show how this type of model can allow policy-makers to explore the uncertain relationship between policies and the evolution of technologies and preferences, which are critical factors in the long-run cost dynamics of GHG emission reduction. We explore these generic methodological issues with a case study of GHG reduction costs in Canada.
Analysis and Modelling Group, National Climate Change Process, Canada (2000). An Assessment of the Economic and Environmental Implications for Canada of the Kyoto Protocol. Ottawa: National Climate Change Process.
2.
AzarC.DowlatabadiH. (1999). “A Review of Technical Change in Assessment of Climate Policy.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment24: 513-544
3.
BohringerC. (1998). “The Synthesis of Bottom-up and Top-down in Energy Policy Modeling.” Energy Economics20: 233-248.
4.
BrownM.LevineM.RommJ.RosenfeldA.KoomeyJ. (1998). “Engineering-Economic Studies of Energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Opportunities and Challenges.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment23: 287-385.
5.
BunchD.BradleyM.GolobT.KitamuraR.OcchuizzoG. (1993). “Demand for Clean-Fuel Vehicles in California: A Discrete-Choice Stated Preference Pilot Project.” Transportation Research27A(3): 237-253.
6.
Dowlatabadi (1998). “Sensitivity of Climate Change Mitigation Estimates to Assumptions about Technical Change.” Energy Economics20(5-6): 473-493.
7.
DukeR.KammenD. (1999). “The Economics of Energy Market Transformation Programs.” The Energy Journal20(4): 15-64.
8.
GritsevskyiA.NakicenovicN. (2000). “Modelling Uncertainty of Induced Technological Change.” Energy Policy28(13):907-922.
9.
GrubbM. (1991). “Policy Modelling for Climate Change: The Missing Models.” Energy Policy21(3): 203-208.
10.
GrubbM.Kohler.I.AndersonD. (2002). “Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytical Approaches and Policy Implications.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment27: 271-308.
11.
GrublerA.NakicenovicN.VictorD. (1999). “Modeling Technological Change: Implications for the Global Environment.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment24: 545-569.
12.
International Energy Agency (2001). Experience Curvesfor Energy Technology. Paris: International Energy Agency.
13.
JaccardM.BailieA.NyboerJ. (1996). “CO2 Emission Reduction Costs in the Residential Sector: Behavioural Parameters in a Bottom-Up Simulation Model.” The Energy Journal17(4): 107-134.
14.
JaccardM.FailingL.BerryT. (1997). “From Equipment to Infrastructure: Community Energy Management and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction.” Energy Policy25(13): 1065-1074.
15.
JaccardM.LoulouR.KanudiaA.NyboerJ.BailieA.LabrietM. (2003). “Methodological Contrasts in Costing Greenhouse Gas Abatement Policies: Optimization and Simulation Modeling of Micro-Economic Effects in Canada.” European Journal of Operations Research (forthcoming).
16.
JacobsenH. (1998). “Integrating the Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches to Energy-Economy Modelling: The Case of Denmark.” Energy Economics20(4): 443-461.
17.
JacobyH.WingI. (1999). “Adjustment Time, Capital Malleability and Policy Cost.” The Energy Journal Special Issue: The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, May:73-92.
18.
JaffeA.StavinsR. (1994). “Energy-Efficiency Investments and Public Policy.” The Energy Journal15(2): 43-65.
19.
JaffeA.NewellR.StavinsR. (2002). “Environmental Policy and Technological Change.” Environmental and Resource Economics22:1-2: 41-69.
20.
KolstadC. (1998). “Integrated Assessment Modeling of Climate Change.” InEconomics and Policy Issues in Climate Change. Ed. NordhausW., 263-286. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
21.
KoopmansC.te VeldeD. (2001). “Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Using Bottom-Up Information in a Top-Down Energy Demand Model.” Energy Economics23(1): 57-75.
22.
KrauseF.BaerP.DeCanioS. (2002). “Cutting Carbon Emissions at a Profit: Opportunities for the U.S.” Contemporary Economic Policy, forthcoming.
23.
LovinsA.LovinsH. (1991). “Least-Cost Climate Stabilization.” AnnualReview of Energy and the Environment16: 433-531.
24.
ManneA.RichelsR. (1994). “The Costs of Stabilizing Global CO, Emissions: A Probabilistic Analysis Based on Expert Judgments.” The Energy Journal 15(l): 31-56.
25.
NortonB.CostanzaR.BishopR. (1998). “The Evolution of Preferences: Why ‘Sovereign’ Preferences May Not Lead to Sustainable Policies and What to Do About It.” Ecological Economics 24(2-3): 193-211 .
26.
NyboerJ. (1997). Simulating Evolution of Technology: An Aid to Energy Policy Analysis, A Case Study of Strategies to Control Greenhouse Gases in Canada Ph.D. diss. Simon Fraser University.
27.
NystromI.WeneC-O. (1999). “Energy-Economy Linking in MARKAL-MACRO: Interplay of Nuclear, Conservation and C02 Policies in Sweden.” International Journal of Environment and Pollution12(2-3): 323-342.
28.
PapathanasiouD.AndersonD. (2001). “Uncertainties in Responding to Climate Change: On the Economic Value of Technology Policies for Reducing Costs and Creating Options.” The Energy Journal22(3): 79-114.
29.
PetersI.AckermanF.BernowS. (1999). “Economic Theory and Climate Change Policy.” Energy Policy27(9): 501-504.
30.
PindyckR. (1991). “Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment.” Journal of Economic Literature29(3): 1110-1152.
31.
StavinsR. (1999). “The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed Preference Approach.” American Economc Review89(4): 994-1009.
32.
SutherlandR. (1996). “The Economics of Energy Conservation Policy.” Energy Policy 24(4): 361370.
33.
TolR. (1999). “The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The Energy Journal 20(l): 61-81.
34.
TrainK. (1985). “Discount Rates in Consumers’ Energy-Related Decisions: A Review of the Literature.” Energy10(12): 1243-1254.
35.
TrainK.AthertonT. (1995). “Rebates, Loans, and Customers’ Choice of Appliance Efficiency Level: Combining Stated- and Revealed-Preference Data.” The Energy Journal16(1): 55-69.
36.
US Energy Information Administration (1998). Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration.
37.
WeyantJ.P. (1998). “The Costs of Carbon Emissions Reductions.” In W. Nordhaus (ed.) Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
