IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aen/journl/1999si-a09.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Post-Kyoto Scenarios: The Asian-Pacific Integrated Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mikiko Kainuma
  • Yuzuru Matsuoka
  • Tsuneyuki Morita

Abstract

The AIM/top-down model is a recursive general equilibrium model used to analyze the post-Kyoto scenarios presented by EMF16. Differences among scenarios mainly arise from the setting of emission trading. Japan's marginal cost is the highest among the Annex I countries except New Zealand, where a relatively high emission reduction is necessary, while the highest GDP loss Is observed in the USA in 2010 in the no trading case. The marginal costs are much less in the global trading case. The countries of the former Soviet Union sell emission rights and the USA buys the largest amount of them. Emission reductions by trading will account for a large part of the total emission reductions if there is no restriction on trading. The GDP gain of the former Soviet Union is the largest in 2010 in the trading cases. The GDP change in Middle East Asia is negative, and reaches the highest level in the no trading case. Carbon leakage is particularly observed in the no trading case.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikiko Kainuma & Yuzuru Matsuoka & Tsuneyuki Morita, 1999. "Analysis of Post-Kyoto Scenarios: The Asian-Pacific Integrated Model," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 207-220.
    • Handle: RePEc:aen:journl:1999si-a09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=1048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to IAEE members and subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tsung-Chen Lee & Hsiao-Chi Chen & Shi-Miin Liu, 2013. "Optimal strategic regulations in international emissions trading under imperfect competition," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(1), pages 39-57, January.
    2. Bergman, Lars, 2005. "CGE Modeling of Environmental Policy and Resource Management," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1273-1306, Elsevier.
    3. Noboru Hidano & Takaaki Kato, 2008. "Determining variability of willingness to pay for Japan’s antiglobal-warming policies: a comparison of contingent valuation surveys," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 259-281, December.
    4. Kenichi Matsumoto, 2007. "Multi-Agent Model to Analyze CO2 Emissions Trading," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000037, EcoMod.
    5. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    6. Springer, Urs, 2003. "The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 527-551, September.
    7. Kainuma, Mikiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru & Morita, Tsuneyuki & Masui, Toshihiko & Takahashi, Kiyoshi, 2004. "Analysis of global warming stabilization scenarios: the Asian-Pacific Integrated Model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 709-719, July.
    8. Joseph Francois & Hans van Meijl, 2003. "Economic Implications of Trade Liberalization Under the Doha Round," Working Papers 2003-20, CEPII research center.
    9. Noboru Hidano & Takaaki Kato, 2008. "Determining variability of willingness to pay for Japan’s antiglobal-warming policies: a comparison of contingent valuation surveys," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(4), pages 259-281, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F0 - International Economics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aen:journl:1999si-a09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: David Williams (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaeeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.