The international economics of resources and resource ... - Index of

More documents

Recommendations

Info

How to increase global resource productivity? 351 In a world of low energy prices it will be much more difficult to reach the EU GHG target. The carbon price will have to reach 120 Euro2008/t in 2020 in scenario S1L. The GDP loss against the baseline with low energy prices will be 3%. Energy, material and carbon productivity increases will not much improve EU competitiveness on international markets, which is reduced as EU prices increase in relation to NON-EU competitors. The comparison of scenarios S1L and S1H to their respective baseline demonstrates the importance of international energy prices for fixed volume (emission) targets. If part of the revenues is used for investment in low-carbon technologies, the carbon price in scenario S2H can even be lower (61 Euro2008/t in 2020) and the GDP loss halved against scenario S1H to only 0.3%, as the investment in renewable energies is assumed to be additional. Employment impacts will be more positive than in scenario S1H. The 10% investment in low-carbon technologies will amount to more than 20 Bill. Euro in 2020. The EU-Commission (2008) impact assessment reports macroeconomic costs of 0.58% of EU GDP in 2020 to reach the GHG and RES targets in a cost-efficient scenario. A carbon price of 39 Euro/t and an additional renewable energy incentive of 4.5 Cent/kWh will be needed in a scenario of low energy prices. Employment impacts are slightly negative. In a sensitivity analysis of the impact assessment with higher energy prices, GDP reduction is only 0.4%. The higher carbon price in GINFORS compared to the EU impact assessment is mainly due to the scenario assumptions, that the carbon price is the only policy instrument, whereas the EU implicitly takes efficiency measures and explicitly additional fostering of renewables into account. If EU-27 wants to reach its 30% reduction target (i.e. a 25% carbon reduction against 1990) within an international agreement only by domestic measures, the carbon price in scenario S3H will have to be 184 Euro/t in 2020 (and 46 Euro/t in the major emerging economies). The E3ME model, also applied in the study, even reports a carbon price of 204 Euro/t for the same scenario. Again, these high prices result as the carbon price is the only policy instrument and reductions are completely in domestic emissions. Other studies not only with GINFORS suggest that EU will be better off, if it purchases part of the emission reductions on global carbon markets. The IEA (2008) reports a global price of carbon of 180 US-Dollar in 2030 to reach the 450 ppm stabilization, which is in line with scenario S3H. GDP reduction in the EU-27 against the baseline will be 1.9% in 2020, partly due to lower international trade and production in other parts of the world. Employment will be 0.77% higher than in the baseline. Scenario S2H clearly shows that a policy mix, including fostering of renewable energies and energy efficiency measures, could further decrease the negative impacts on production and jobs. Negative GDP impacts above average in NON-OECD countries as China and Russia underpin their demand for technology and financial transfers as part of a global post-Kyoto agreement. EU energy, carbon and material productivity will improve in scenarios S1H, S2H and S3H against the baseline (see Table 2). Labour productivity will decrease mainly due to the structural shift from energy-and carbon-intensive to labour-intensive industries. The increase in carbon productivity is higher than in energy productivity due to the shift towards low carbon energy carriers.
352 C. Lutz Table 2 EU27 productivity: percentage deviations against respective baselines in 2020 Scenario Material Productivity Energy Productivity Labour Productivity Carbon Productivity S1H 0.91 6.04 −0.93 8.59 S2H 0.84 7.15 −0.71 8.99 S3H 1.78 15.48 −2.61 21.35 S1L 1.97 12.21 −3.02 17.17 The scenarios do not take specific policy measures into account to reach the EU renewables target of a 20% renewables share in final energy consumption in 2020. But the share will increase from around 10% today to above 14% even in the baseline with low energy prices as instruments such as feed in tariffs and bio fuel quotas will continue. In scenario S1H the target will be missed with around 18% in 2020. Only in scenarios S2H (almost 20%) and S3H (22%), the target is met without explicit policy efforts. On the global level, EU action plays only a minor role. According to Fig. 5 the level of international energy prices on the one hand and the participation of the major emitters on the other hand is much more important for the global emission path. The EU can mainly give an example that a low-carbon society can be reached. An additional argument for mitigation efforts may be that even unilateral EU action could increase employment in the EU, although GDP and employment impacts will even be better in the case of international cooperation (Lutz and Meyer 2009b). Figure 6 illustrates that global material extraction continues to grow in all three scenarios. With less than 0.1% reduction, the world-wide effects of the measures implemented in scenario S1H are negligible. S3H measures lead to a decrease of 5.3% compared to the baseline, but overall levels of extraction still continue to grow. Throughout the scenarios, the group of emerging economies largely determines the overall growth trend. Brazil is expected to experience the strongest growth in 40 36 32 28 24 20 BL BH S1H S3H 1990 2005 2010 2015 2020 Fig. 5 Global energy-related CO2 emissions in Mt CO2 in different scenarios
Page 1 and 2:
Int Econ Econ Policy (2010) 7:147-1
Page 3 and 4:
The international economics of reso
Page 5 and 6:
The international economics of reso
Page 7 and 8:
154 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Keywords
Page 9 and 10:
156 P.J.J. Welfens et al. developme
Page 11 and 12:
158 P.J.J. Welfens et al. In the su
Page 13 and 14:
160 P.J.J. Welfens et al. genuine s
Page 15 and 16:
162 P.J.J. Welfens et al. pt p0 1 p
Page 17 and 18:
164 P.J.J. Welfens et al. A synthet
Page 19 and 20:
166 P.J.J. Welfens et al. ecologica
Page 21 and 22:
168 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 1 0,8 0,6
Page 23 and 24:
170 P.J.J. Welfens et al. In additi
Page 25 and 26:
172 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Fig. 5 Pa
Page 27 and 28:
174 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 1.0 0.5 0
Page 29 and 30:
176 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 2007: 1.0
Page 31 and 32:
178 P.J.J. Welfens et al. weak in t
Page 33 and 34:
180 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Fig. 10 T
Page 35 and 36:
182 P.J.J. Welfens et al. pessimist
Page 37 and 38:
184 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Reference
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Sustainability economics, resource
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
The U.S. proposed carbon tariffs, W
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
228 R. Bleischwitz economics and po
Page 81 and 82:
230 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 1 Global re
Page 83 and 84:
232 R. Bleischwitz demand is estima
Page 85 and 86:
234 R. Bleischwitz the ‘socio-ind
Page 87 and 88:
236 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 4 Productiv
Page 89 and 90:
238 R. Bleischwitz 5 Resource produ
Page 91 and 92:
240 R. Bleischwitz The vast majorit
Page 93 and 94:
242 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 6 Resource
Page 95 and 96:
244 R. Bleischwitz Ericsson M (2009
Page 97 and 98:
246 R. Walz 1 Introduction Competen
Page 99 and 100:
248 R. Walz Based on the pollution
Page 101 and 102:
250 R. Walz procedures. However, ev
Page 103 and 104:
252 R. Walz In addition to exports,
Page 105 and 106:
254 R. Walz 4 Technological capabil
Page 107 and 108:
256 R. Walz 4.2 Analysis of patents
Page 109 and 110:
258 R. Walz recycling (e.g. shiftab
Page 111 and 112:
260 R. Walz Fig. 10 Specialization
Page 113 and 114:
262 R. Walz Table 1 Overview of ind
Page 115 and 116:
264 R. Walz questions alone. Clearl
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Eco-innovation for environmental su
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
The Dutch energy transition approac
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: The Dutch energy transition approac
Page 167 and 168: Int Econ Econ Policy (2010) 7:317-3
Page 169 and 170: Multi-agent modeling of economic in
Page 193 and 194: 344 C. Lutz 1 Introduction This cha
Page 195 and 196: 346 C. Lutz The scenario analysis a
Page 197 and 198: 348 C. Lutz is designed to reduce g
Page 199: 350 C. Lutz 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 C
Page 203 and 204: 354 C. Lutz material-intensive to l
Page 205 and 206: 356 C. Lutz Giljum S, Behrens A, Hi
Page 207 and 208: 358 T. Machiba While industries are
Page 209 and 210: 360 T. Machiba Field Target Technol
Page 211 and 212: 362 T. Machiba 3 Understanding sust
Page 213 and 214: 364 T. Machiba The automotive and t
Page 215 and 216: 366 T. Machiba Air conditioners fun
Page 217 and 218: 368 T. Machiba Table 2 Application
Page 219: 370 T. Machiba Charter M, Clark T (
show all

The international economics of resources and resource ... - Index of

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?