IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/enejou/v27y2006i3p25-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Options and Instruments for a Deep Cut in CO2 Emissions: Carbon Dioxide Capture or Renewables, Taxes or Subsidies?

Author

Listed:
  • Reyer Gerlagh
  • Bob van der Zwaan

Abstract

This paper compares both the main physical options and the principal policy instruments to realize a deep cut in carbon dioxide emissions necessary to control global climate change. A top-down energy-economy model is used that has three emission reduction options: energy savings, a transition towards less-carbon-intensive or non-carbon energy resources, and the use of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology. Five policy instruments - carbon taxes, fossil fuel taxes, non-carbon (renewable) energy subsidies, a portfolio standard for the carbon intensity of energy production, and a portfolio standard for the use of non-carbon (renewable) energy resources - are compared in terms of costs, efficiency and their impact on the composition of the energy supply system. One of our main conclusions is that a carbon intensity portfolio standard, involving the recycling of carbon taxes to support renewables deployment, is the most cost-efficient way to address the problem of global climate change. A comprehensive introduction of the capture and storage of carbon dioxide would contribute to reducing the costs of climate change control, but would not obviate the large-scale need for renewables.

Suggested Citation

  • Reyer Gerlagh & Bob van der Zwaan, 2006. "Options and Instruments for a Deep Cut in CO2 Emissions: Carbon Dioxide Capture or Renewables, Taxes or Subsidies?," The Energy Journal, , vol. 27(3), pages 25-48, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:27:y:2006:i:3:p:25-48
    DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No3-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No3-3
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No3-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 941-975.
    2. Gerlagh, Reyer & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2003. "Gross world product and consumption in a global warming model with endogenous technological change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 35-57, February.
    3. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gugler, Klaus & Szücs, Florian & Wiedenhofer, Thomas, 2024. "Environmental Policies and directed technological change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Fikru, Mahelet G. & Belaïd, Fateh & Ma, Hongyan, 2024. "Carbon capture and renewable energy policies: Could policy harmonization be a puzzle piece to solve the electricity crisis?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Jun Zhang & Samia Khalid & Hamid Mahmood, 2024. "Assessing the effectiveness of environmental policies in the OECD countries: An advanced panel data estimation study," Energy & Environment, , vol. 35(8), pages 4294-4309, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Heinzel & Ralph Winkler, 2011. "Distorted Time Preferences and Time-to-Build in the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 217-241, June.
    2. Gerlagh, Reyer & Lise, Wietze, 2005. "Carbon taxes: A drop in the ocean, or a drop that erodes the stone? The effect of carbon taxes on technological change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 241-260, August.
    3. David Popp, 2003. "ENTICE: Endogenous Technological Change in the DICE Model of Global Warming," NBER Working Papers 9762, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Gerlagh, Reyer, 2008. "A climate-change policy induced shift from innovations in carbon-energy production to carbon-energy savings," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 425-448, March.
    5. Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Nicita, Lea & Massetti, Emanuele & Verdolini, Elena, 2010. "Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 4(2), pages 163-219, October.
    6. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2734-2753, November.
    7. Reyer Gerlagh & Marjan W. Hofkes, 2004. "Time Profile of Climate Change Stabilization Policy," Working Papers 2004.139, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Buonanno, Paolo & Carraro, Carlo & Galeotti, Marzio, 2003. "Endogenous induced technical change and the costs of Kyoto," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 11-34, February.
    9. CHAKRAVORTY Ujjayant & LEACH Andrew & MOREAUX Michel, 2008. ""Twin Peaks" in Energy Prices: A Polluting Fossil Fuel with Learning in the Clean Substitute," LERNA Working Papers 08.15.259, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    10. Popp, David, 2004. "ENTICE: endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 742-768, July.
    11. Marzio Galeotti & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Does Endogenous Technical Change Make a Difference in Climate Policy Analysis? A Robustness Exercise with the FEEM-RICE Model," Working Papers 2004.152, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Reyer Gerlagh, 2004. "A Climate-Change Policy Induced Shift from Innovations in Energy Production to Energy Savings," Working Papers 2004.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Leach, Andrew & Moreaux, Michel, 2009. ""Twin Peaks" in Energy Prices: A Hotelling Model with Pollution Learning," Working Papers 2009-10, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    15. Gregory Casey, 2024. "Energy Efficiency and Directed Technical Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 192-228.
    16. Gerlagh, Reyer, 2007. "Measuring the value of induced technological change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5287-5297, November.
    17. Ralph Winkler, 2008. "Optimal compliance with emission constraints: dynamic characteristics and the choice of technique," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 411-432, April.
    18. Reyer Gerlagh & Wietze Lise, 2003. "Induced Technological Change Under Carbon Taxes," Working Papers 2003.84, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Galeotti, Marzio, 2006. "Stabilisation Targets, Technical Change and the Macroeconomic Costs of Climate Change Control," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 12050, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    20. Antung Anthony Liu & Hiroaki Yamagami, 2018. "Environmental Policy in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 279-299, September.

    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:sae:enejou:v:27:y:2006:i:3:p:25-48. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.