IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/camaaa/2013-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling Complex Emissions Intensity Targets with a Simple Simulation Algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Yiyong Cai
  • Yingying Lu
  • David Newth
  • Alison Stegman

Abstract

Designing, modelling and analysing global emissions policies are becoming increasingly complex undertakings. Pressure on developing economies to make quantifiable emissions reduction commitments has led to the introduction of intensity based emissions targets, where reductions in emissions are specified with reference to some measure of output, generally gross domestic product. The Copenhagen commitments of China and India are two prominent examples. From a modelling perspective, intensity targets substantially increase the complexity of analysis, with respect to both theoretical design and computational implementation. Here, a clear and practically relevant theoretical design is used to present a new algorithm that can be applied to frameworks that model the complex interaction that occurs between emissions policy instruments, emissions levels and output effects under an emissions intensity target. The coding of the algorithm has been simplified to allow for easy integration into a range of modelling frameworks. Further development of the algorithm that allows for more complex theoretical design structures is possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiyong Cai & Yingying Lu & David Newth & Alison Stegman, 2013. "Modelling Complex Emissions Intensity Targets with a Simple Simulation Algorithm," CAMA Working Papers 2013-33, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:een:camaaa:2013-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/cama_crawford_anu_edu_au/2021-05/33_2013_cai_lu_newth_stegman.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    2. Frank Jotzo & John Pezzey, 2007. "Optimal intensity targets for greenhouse gas emissions trading under uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 259-284, October.
    3. Lu, Yingying & Stegman, Alison & Cai, Yiyong, 2013. "Emissions intensity targeting: From China's 12th Five Year Plan to its Copenhagen commitment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1164-1177.
    4. Warwick J. Mckibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2011. "Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis Of The Copenhagen Accord," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 79-103.
    5. Quirion, Philippe, 2005. "Does uncertainty justify intensity emission caps?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 343-353, November.
    6. McKibbin, Warwick J. & Pearce, David & Stegman, Alison, 2007. "Long term projections of carbon emissions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 637-653.
    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. Lu, Yingying & Stegman, Alison & Cai, Yiyong, 2013. "Emissions intensity targeting: From China's 12th Five Year Plan to its Copenhagen commitment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1164-1177.

    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. Yiyong Cai & Yingying Lu & Alison Stegman & David Newth, 2017. "Simulating emissions intensity targets with energy economic models: algorithm and application," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 141-155, August.
    2. Lu, Yingying & Stegman, Alison & Cai, Yiyong, 2013. "Emissions intensity targeting: From China's 12th Five Year Plan to its Copenhagen commitment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1164-1177.
    3. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    4. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    5. Frédéric Branger & Philippe Quirion, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Working Papers 2014.09, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    6. Hossa Almutairi & Samir Elhedhli, 2014. "Carbon tax based on the emission factor: a bilevel programming approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 795-815, April.
    7. Pezzey, John C.V. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Research Reports 95049, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    8. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    9. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    10. Liu, Weifeng & McKibbin, Warwick J. & Morris, Adele C. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 2020. "Global economic and environmental outcomes of the Paris Agreement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Tao Pang & Maosheng Duan, 2016. "Cap setting and allowance allocation in China's emissions trading pilot programmes: special issues and innovative solutions," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 815-835, October.
    12. Neil J. Buckley & Stuart Mestelman & R. Andrew Muller, 2014. "Production Capacity and Abatement Technology Strategies in Emissions Trading Markets," Department of Economics Working Papers 2014-16, McMaster University.
    13. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Indexed regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 221-233, November.
    14. Yingying Lu & David I. Stern, 2016. "Substitutability and the Cost of Climate Mitigation Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 81-107, May.
    15. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Diluiso, Francesca, 2019. "International transmission of the business cycle and environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    16. Stern, David I. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "How ambitious are China and India's emissions intensity targets?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6776-6783, November.
    17. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2017. "GHG Emissions Control and Monetary Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 823-851, August.
    18. Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2010. "Revisiting the case for intensity targets: Better incentives and less uncertainty for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5048-5058, September.
    19. Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Comparing the Copenhagen emissions targets," Working Papers 249378, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    20. Philippe Quirion, 2022. "Output-based allocation and output-based rebates: a survey," Chapters, in: Handbook on Trade Policy and Climate Change, chapter 7, pages 94-107, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:een:camaaa:2013-33. 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: Cama Admin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.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.