TY - JOUR
T1 - THE EU 20/20/2020 targets
T2 - An overview of the EMF22 assessment
AU - Böhringer, Christoph
AU - Rutherford, Thomas F.
AU - Tol, Richard S.J.
PY - 2009/11/9
Y1 - 2009/11/9
N2 - Three computable general equilibrium models are used to estimate the economic implications of a stylized version of EU climate policy. If implemented at the lowest possible cost, the 20% emissions reduction would lead to a welfare loss of 0.5-2.0% by 2020. Second-best policies increase costs. A policy with two carbon prices (one for the ETS, one for the non-ETS) could increase costs by up to 50%. A policy with 28 carbon prices (one for the ETS, one each for each Member State) could increase costs by another 40%. The renewables standard could raise the costs of emissions reduction by 90%. Overall, the inefficiencies in policy lead to a cost that is 100-125% too high. The models differ greatly in the detail of their results. The ETS/non-ETS split may have a negligible impact on welfare, while the renewables standard may even improve welfare. The models agree, however, that the distortions introduced by total EU package imply a substantial welfare loss over and above the costs needed to meet the climate target. The marginal, total and excess costs reported here are notably higher than those in the impact assessment of the European Commission.
AB - Three computable general equilibrium models are used to estimate the economic implications of a stylized version of EU climate policy. If implemented at the lowest possible cost, the 20% emissions reduction would lead to a welfare loss of 0.5-2.0% by 2020. Second-best policies increase costs. A policy with two carbon prices (one for the ETS, one for the non-ETS) could increase costs by up to 50%. A policy with 28 carbon prices (one for the ETS, one each for each Member State) could increase costs by another 40%. The renewables standard could raise the costs of emissions reduction by 90%. Overall, the inefficiencies in policy lead to a cost that is 100-125% too high. The models differ greatly in the detail of their results. The ETS/non-ETS split may have a negligible impact on welfare, while the renewables standard may even improve welfare. The models agree, however, that the distortions introduced by total EU package imply a substantial welfare loss over and above the costs needed to meet the climate target. The marginal, total and excess costs reported here are notably higher than those in the impact assessment of the European Commission.
KW - Abatement costs
KW - Climate policy
KW - Emission reduction target
KW - European Union
KW - Renewables target
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70749127544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70749127544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.010
DO - 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.010
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:70749127544
SN - 0140-9883
VL - 31
SP - S268-S273
JO - Energy Economics
JF - Energy Economics
IS - SUPPL. 2
ER -