Estimates of marginal abatement costs for reducing carbon emissions derived from major economic-energy models vary widely. Controlling for policy regimes we use meta-analysis to examine the importance of structural modeling choices in explaining differences in estimates. The analysis indicates that particular assumptions about perfectly foresighted consumers and Armington trade elasticities generate lower estimates of marginal abatement costs. Other choices are associated with higher cost estimates, including perfectly mobile capital, inclusion of a backstop technology, and greater disaggregation among regions and sectors. Some features, such as greater technological detail, seem less significant. Understanding the importance of key modeling assumptions, as well as the way the models are used to estimate abatement costs, can help guide the development of consistent modeling practices for policy evaluation.
AES Corporation (1990). An Overview of the Fossil2 Model, Arlington, VA.
2.
BernsteinP.M.MontgomeryW.D.RutherfordT.F.YangG.F. (1999). “Effects of Restrictions on International Permit Trading: The MS-MRT Model.” Energy Journal Special Issue: 221-256.
3.
BollenJ.C.GielenA.TimmerH. (1999). “Clubs, Ceilings, and CDM.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 177-206.
4.
BoydR.KrutillaK.ViscusiW.K. (1995). “Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument to Reduce CO2 Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management29: 21-24.
5.
BurniauxJ.M.MartinJ.P.NicolettiG.MartinsJ.O. (1991). “The Costs of Policies to Reduce Global Emissions of CO2: Initial Simulation Results with GREEN.” OECD Dept. of Economic Statistics, Resource Allocation Division, Working Paper No. 103, Paris: OECD/GD (91).
6.
Charles River Associates (1997). “World Economic Impacts of U.S. Commitments to Medium Term Carbon Emissions Limits.” Paper prepared for American Petroleum Institute, CRA No. 837-06.
7.
CooperA.LivermoreS.RossiV.WalkerJ.WilsonA. (1999). “Economic Implications of Reducing Carbon Emissions: the Oxford Model.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 335-365.
8.
DRI/Charles River Associates (1994). “Economic Impacts of Carbon Taxes: Detailed Results.” Research Project 3441-01 prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, November.
9.
EdmondsJ.A.PitcherH.M.BarnsD.BaronR.WiseM.A. (1995). “Modeling Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Second Generation Model Description.” In KleinL.R.LoF.C. eds., Modeling Climate Change, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
10.
EdmondsJ.A.PitcherH.M.BarnsD.BaronR.WiseM.A. (1993). “Modeling Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Second Generation Model Description.” Paper presented to the U.N. University Conference on ‘Global Change and Modeling,’ Tokyo, Japan, October
11.
EdmondsJ.A.ReillyJ.M. (1985). Global Energy: Assessing the Future, New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
EdmondsJ.A.ReillyJ.M. (1983). “Global Energy and CO2 to the Year 2050.” Energy Journal, 4:3, 21-47.
13.
Energy Modeling Forum (1999). “The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue, edited by J.P. WeyantMay:1-448.
14.
GhersiFrederic (2001). SAP 12: Technical description. Nogent-sur-Marne, France: CIRED.
15.
GhersiFredericTomanMichael A. (1999). “Modeling Challenges in Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Trading,” in Understanding the Design and Performance of Emissions Trading Systems for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Proceedings of an Experts' Workshop to Identify Research Needs and Priorities, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
16.
GlassG. (1976). “Primary, Secondary and Meta-analysis of Research, Educational Reviewer, 5: 3-8.
17.
GoulderL.H. (1995). “Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: A Reader’s Guide.” International Tax and Public Finance2(2): 157-183.
18.
HamiltonL.D.GoldsteinG.A.LeeJ.ManneA.S.MarcuseW.MorrisS.C.WeneC.O. (1992). MARKAL-MACRO: An Overview. Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, November.
19.
HardinJames, W. (2002). “The robust variance estimator for two-stage models,” Stata Journal, 2(3): 253-266.
20.
HawellekJ.KemfertC.KremersH. (2004). “A Quantitative Comparison of Economic Costs: Assessment Implementing the Kyoto Protocol”, mimeo (under review at journal).
21.
HuberPJ. (1967). “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates Under Non-Standard Conditions,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics ad Probability. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1: 221-233.
22.
JacobyH.D.WingI.S.. (1999). “Adjustment Time, Capital Malleability and Policy Cost.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 73-92.
23.
JorgensonD.W.SlesnickD.T.WilcoxenP.J. (1992). “Carbon Taxes and Economic Welfare.” In Brookings Papers in Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1992. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 393-431.
24.
KainumaM.MatsuokaY.MoritaT. (1999). “Analysis of Post-Kyoto Scenarios: AIM Model.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 207-220.
25.
KaufmannRobertLaiH-YPaulyP.ThompsonL.. (1992). “Global Macroeconomic Effects of Carbon Taxes: A Feasibility Study.” Paper prepared for the EPA, Washington, D.C., Contract No. 68-W8-0113.
26.
KlepperG.PetersonS. (2003). “On the Robustness of Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: The Influence of World Energy Prices.” Kiel Working Paper 1138. Kiel, Germany: Kiel Institute for World Economics.
27.
KurosawaA.YagitaH.WeishengZ.TokimatsuK.YanagisawaY. (1999). “Analysis of Carbon Emissions Stabilization Targets and Adaptation by Integrated Assessment Model.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 157-175.
28.
LaskyMark (2003). The Economic Costs of Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: A Survey of Economic Models, Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office (2003-3), 92.
29.
MacCrackenC.N.EdmondsJ.A.KimS.H.SandsR.D. (1999). “Economics of the Kyoto Protocol.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 25-71.
30.
ManneA.S.MendelsohnR.RichelsR. (1995). “A Model for Evaluating Regional and Global Effects of GHG Reduction Policies.” Energy Policy23(1): 17-34.
31.
ManneA.S.RichelsR.G. (1990a). “The Costs of Reducing U.S. CO2 Emission: Further Sensitivity Analyses.” Energy Journal, 11:4, 69-78.
32.
ManneA.S.RichelsR. (1999). “The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 1-23.
33.
ManneA.S.RichelsR. (2001). U.S. Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Costs and CO2 Emissions, Stanford University - Mechanical Engineering and Electric Power Research Institute.
34.
McKibbinW.J.RossM.ShackeltonR.WilcoxenPJ. (1999). “Emissions Trading, Capital Flows and the Kyoto Protocol.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 257-333.
35.
McKibbinW.WilcoxenPJ. (1996). “Environmental Policy, Capital Flows and International Trade,” Workin. Paper, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
36.
NordhausW.D.BoyerJ.G. (1999a). “Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 93-130.
37.
NordhausW.D.BoyerJ.G. (1999b). Roll the DICE Again: Economic Models of Global Warming. http://www.econ.yale.edu/∼nordhaus/homepage/dicemodels.htm
38.
PeckS.C.TeisbergT. (1992). “CETA: A model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment.” Energy Journal13(1):55-77.
39.
PeckS.C.TeisbergT. (1999). “CO2 Emissions Control Agreements: Incentives for Regional Participation.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 367-390.
40.
RepettoRobertAustinDuncan (1997). The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 51.
41.
RogersW.H. (1993). “sg17: Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples,” Stata Technical Bulletin13: 19-23. Reprinted in Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints3: 88-94.
42.
RutherfordT. (1992). “The Welfare Effects of Fossil Carbon Restrictions: Results from a Recursively Dynamic Trade Model,” OECD Dept. of Economic Statistics, Resource Allocation Division, Working Paper No. 112 Paris: OECD/GD (91).
43.
TolR.S.J. (1999). “Kyoto, Efficiency, and Cost-Effectiveness: Applications of FUND.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 131-156.
44.
TulpuleV.BrownS.LimJ.PolidanoC.PantH.FisherB.S. (1999). “The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis Using GTEM.” Energy Journal, Special Issue: 257-285.
45.
WeyantJohn P.HillJennifer N. (1999). “Introduction and Overview.” Energy Journal, Kyoto Special Issue: vii-xiiv.
46.
YangZ.EckausR.S.EllermanA.D.JacobyH.D. (1996). The MIT Emissions Predictions and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model. Report 6. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Joint Program on the Science of Global Change, May.
