How much would the Kyoto Protocol cost to consumers? Erik Dietzenbacher * and Mònica Serrano ** * Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands ** Department of Economic Theory, University of Barcelona, Spain PRELIMINARY VERSION (April 2012) Please, do not quote. Abstract: In recent decades there has been a growing interest in the consequences of globalization for environmental problems, especially for those generated by greenhouse gas emissions. This concern has been intensified in the last years since the five-year accounting period (2008-2012) of the Kyoto protocol is near to be accomplished. The numerous published papers related to this topic reveal that little attention has been paid to the macro-economic effects of this protocol. This paper starts from the assumption that industries incur extra costs per ton of emitted pollutants (e.g. CO 2 abatement costs, emission allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, environmental taxes, opportunity costs), which are necessary to reduce the present amount of pollution. It is further assumed that all producers fully pass these costs on to the buyers of their products. As a consequence, this will affect the value of consumption. This extra cost to consumers can be viewed as a change in the consumption price index. The aim of this paper is to give some insights in the extra costs for consumers if Annex B countries had fulfilled the targets of the Kyoto protocol. Using the World Input-Output Tables of the WIOD project, this paper analyses different scenarios. The main results show that, in general, consumers might well be able to bear the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol. Keywords: Price input-output model, World Input-Output Tables, cost of pollution 1
1. Introduction In recent decades there has been a growing interest in the consequences of globalization for environmental problems, especially for those generated by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This concern has been intensified in the last years since the five-year accounting period (2008-2012) of the Kyoto protocol is near to be accomplished. Studies concerned with the analysis of the broader economic repercussions of adopting the Kyoto protocol are usually based on modelling the interaction between the environment, energy sectors, and the rest of the economy. Basically there are two broad approaches: the so-called bottom-up and top-down models. The bottom-up models accentuate the analysis on a detailed, technologically-based treatment of the energy system; whereas the top-down models stress a theoretically consistent description of the general economy. Regardless their differences, both mainly coincide with respect the emphasis on the energy system as the sector where all policy instruments or technology changes are applied. Weyant (1999) offers an interesting and comprehensive report on a comparative set of modelling analyses of the economic and energy sector impacts of the Kyoto protocol. And in-depth studies for some countries can be found in ICCF (2005). However, the numerous published papers related to environmental emissions monitoring by the Kyoto protocol using input-output approach reveal that little attention has been paid to the macro-economic effects of this protocol within this analytical framework. In this paper we would like to have some insights about what would have been the cost for final consumers (i.e. households) if Annex B countries had fulfilled their Kyoto emission targets. We assume that all industries, not only the energy sectors, incur extra cost per ton of emitted pollutants in order to reduce the present amount of pollution employing the current technology. These costs can be materialized differently; for instance, in form of CO 2 abatement costs, emission allowances in the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), environmental taxes, or economic opportunity costs. We further assume that the costs of emissions will pass along to consumers in the form of higher prices for all goods 2
and services. The consumers purchasing power will reduced by the higher cost of the consumption. Ultimately, this extra cost to consumers can be viewed as a change in the value of the same purchased bundle. In this paper, various scenarios are analysed using an input-output price model and the World Input-Output Database (WIOD). The remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 2 provides the methodology applied in this study. In Section 3 we describe the database used and all the assumptions we have made in order to accommodate the available data to our model. In Section 4 we analyse the results for different scenarios. They show that in the most likely situation, i.e. if all Annex B countries would have ratified the protocol and fulfilled their respective binding emission ceilings, consumers might well be able to bear the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol. However, the important role that China could play would offer different outcomes. Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 5. 2. Methodology The analytical framework used in this study is the price input-output model based on monetary input-output table as presented in Chapter 2 of Miller and Blair (2009). The standard input-output approach assumes that each industry produces a single good by means of combination of intermediate inputs and primary factors in fixed proportions. It also assumes that all production processes operate under constant returns to scale and, in consequence, the economic benefits of each sector are equal to zero. Hence, the value of output of any sector j must be equal to the value of its inputs. That is, for sector j the value of its production (or sales) x j should equal the cost of production given by the cost of intermediate inputs z ij plus the cost of primary inputs μ g. So, let p j be the price per unit of sector s j output, and π g be the exogenous unit price of primary input g (for instance, wage per person-year, rents of land per hectare and per year, or return on capital per year), we can write the 3
following accounting equation, which states that for each sector its receipt equals its outlays: 1 px = pz + pz + + pz + π μ (1) j j 1 1j 2 2 j n nj g gj g = 1 m Dividing this expression by x j gives: j 1 1j 2 2 j n nj g gj g = 1 m p = pa + pa + + pa + π l (2) Where a ij and l gj are the intermediate and primary input coefficients, respectively. This expression shows the price of one unit of output j as the unit cost of production, that is, it expresses the price of one physical unit of product j equals the cost involved in producing that unit. In matrix notation, the set of equations yields: p' = p' A+ v ' (3) Where v = πl is a vector of primary cost per unit of output (the elements of this vector represent the total monetary value of all primary inputs required for unit of sector j s output). Expression (3) leads to: -1 p' = v'( I A) = v' L (4) Where -1 L= ( I A ) is the Leontief matrix. This expression indicates that product prices are proportional to the cost of primary inputs. If the data are obtained from a standard input-output table, the price of each product will be equal to 1. That is, the base year index price will be represented by the summation vector consisting of 1 s i '. This fact reflects that there is a unique unit of measurement, i.e. the amount that 1 Matrices are indicated by bold, upright capital letters; vectors by bold, upright lower case letters; and scalars by italicized lower case letters. Vectors are columns by definition, so that row vectors are obtained by transposition, indicated by a prime. A diagonal matrix with the elements of any vector on its main diagonal and all other entries equal to zero is indicated by a circumflex. 4
can be purchased for 1 monetary unit (let say American dollars $, Euros, Japanese yens, pound sterling, etc.). The price model presented above is generally used to measure the impact on prices throughout the economy of a change in the cost of primary inputs in one or more sectors. 2 However, this price model can also be applied to analyse the impact of new costs. Imagine the situation that industries must incur extra costs per ton of emitted pollutants (e.g. CO2 abatement costs, emission allowances in Emissions Trading Scheme, environmental taxes, opportunity cost, etc.), which are necessary to reduce the present amount of pollution. In such a case, the new price of one unit of output j will be: p ' = p ' A+ v' + d ' (5) Where d is a vector of extra cost per unit of output. The impact on prices of this extra cost will be determine by the difference between initial prices p and new prices p, such that Δ p' = p ' p' = ( Δ p)' A+ d '. Solving this expression the price increase will be: Δ p' = d' L (6) In this study, the extra cost has been computed as d= τe, where, τ is the environmental cost and e is the vector of extra emission coefficients. In that case, however, the emissions considered to calculate coefficients in e are those emissions that had exceed the target fixed by the Kyoto protocol ( w ) to each country, such that: e= w' x 1. The input-output price model defined above are long run or supply prices (Bulmer-Thomas, 1982). That is, the prices of products are defined without considering the interaction of final demand from households or final consumers. Moreover, in this model it is further assumed that all producers fully pass their costs on to the buyers of their products. Hence, in the cost-push input-output price model 2 This price model is called cost-push input-output price model. See Oosterhaven (1996) and Dietzenbacher (1997). 5
is the consumer (the final buyer) who fully bears the extra cost as a last resort. Consumers will face higher prices for all goods and services and their consumers purchasing power would be reduced. This extra cost to consumers can be measured as a change in the value of consumption defining, for instance, a Laspayres type price index such as: PI L = n i= 1 n i= 1 p c i p c i i i (7) Where c i is quantity of good i purchased by consumers in the base year, p i is the initial price of good i in the base year (i.e. the price without the extra cost), and p i is the new price of good i including the extra cost. This Laspayres price index compares the value of the bundle of base year using new prices with the value of the same bundle using the base year or initial prices. So, a Laspayres index of 1 would state that the consumer can afford to buy the same bundle of goods as he consumed before including the extra cost, given that income has not changed. 3. Database and assumptions In this study we basically used the information offered by the World Input-Output Database (WIOD). 3 This is database includes a worldwide time series of national input-output tables for 40 countries covering at least 80% of world GDP and 35 sectors. These national tables are fully linked through bilateral trade data, generating a full multi-country input-output table. The time series covers the period 1995-2009 and contains tables in current and constant international prices. In addition, the WIOD also includes socio-economic and environmental satellite accounts. Specifically, we used the so-called World Input-Output Table (WIOT) analytical at current prices and data on the three main greenhouse gases (GHG) monitoring by the Kyoto protocol (i.e. CO 2, N 2 0 and CH 4 ) by sector expressed in kilotons (kton) of CO 2 3 The current version of this paper refers to the last release 22 December 2011 6
equivalent. 4 These three GHG have been aggregated in accordance with the global warming potential (GWP100) of each gas as established by the IPCC (1997). These conversion factors are: 1 for CO 2, 21 for CH 4, and 310 for N 2 O. Since the aim of this study is to know what would have happened if ratifier countries of the Kyoto protocol had paid a cost for the emissions that had exceed the own target, 5 we need to quantify the amount of these extra emissions for each country and to determine the corresponding cost. On one hand, due to the WIOD availability we take 1995 emissions as an approximation of the Kyoto base year 1990 for all countries. Also due to WIOD characteristics we take 2006 as the hypothetical year of actuation. Hence, if the country already fulfilled their Kyoto target in 2006 or the country is a non-annex B country, the cost will be 0. Otherwise, we will apply a cost on the extra emission coefficients. These coefficients are calculated as the difference between emissions in 2006 and emission target in 2012 divided by 2006 output. On the other hand, we determine the hypothetical cost that countries would have paid for its extra emissions. In that case, we analyse three different scenarios. In scenario 1, we establish is a kind of minimum cost of 0.02634 million US$ per kton of CO 2. This amount is the result of considering the price of one European Union Allowance (EUA) in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) as an approximation to the cost of the CO 2 emissions. In that case we take the mean of monthly prices for 2006 from the December 2008 series according to the study reported by Ellerman and Joskow (2008). This cost agrees with the other studies that also consider GHG abatement cost (IEA, 2009; McKinsey & Company, 2009; Russ et al., 2009). Scenario 2 considers a kind of maximum cost of 0.1 million US$ per kton of CO 2. This information provides from the IEA (2009) report, which states that almost all the emissions reductions come at cost below $100 per tonne of CO 2 in the period to 2030. Finally, a third scenario has been computed. In that case, we took into account the emission reduction actions that are possible with technologies that either are available today or offer a high degree of certainly about their potential in a 4 Only emissions from sectors are considered; so, household emissions have been discarded. 5 The different targets are presented in the Appendix of this paper. For more information about the Kyoto protocol and each country target see United Nations (1997), and also the website from the Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. 7
2030 time horizon. The cost of reducing 1 kton of CO 2 would be 0.07527 million US$. For each scenario we have considered various assumptions. The first assumption (I) reflects the present context, that is, non-annex B countries have not any target. The second assumption (II) tries to reproduce a hypothetical situation in which China had the same target as USA, i.e. it should have reduced their emissions by 93 percent of the base year emissions. Finally, a last assumption (III) has also been considered in which all non-annex B countries had the same target as USA (i.e. they should have reduced their emissions by 93 percent of the base year emissions). In all scenarios we assumed USA ratified the Kyoto protocol on February 2005. 4. Results In this section we present some preliminary results obtained from the last three scenarios taking into account the different assumptions (see Figure 1 for a summary). It is important to bear in mind that the information is not the final version and therefore some odd results have to be carefully checked. Figure 1: Summary of the scenarios and assumptions considered SCENARIO 1: Cost 0,02634 million US$ per kton of CO2 SCENARIO 2: Cost 0,1 million US$ per kton of CO2 SCENARIO 3: Cost 0,07527 million US$ per kton of CO2 Ass. I: Kyoto Targets only for Annex B countries Ass. II: China has the same target as USA (i.e. 93) Ass. III: All non Annex B countries have the same target as USA (i.e. 93) Table 1 shows the consumption index for each country under each scenario and assumption. The results of this tables indicates that regardless the cost considered under the assumption I (i.e. the current situation) the consumers might well be able to bear the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol. The average consumer index would be 1.0013 under Scenario 1.I, 1.0050 under Scenario 2.I, and 1.0038 under Scenario 3.I. In all cases the maximum consumer index would correspond to Bulgaria (1.0047, 1.0178, and 1.0134) and the minimum to India (1.0001, 1.0004, and 1.0003, respectively). 8
If we compare Scenario 1.I with Scenario 1:II we see that when the cost is almost 4 times higher, the maximum inflation also but the maximum inflation also is approximately 4 times as high (in that case correspond to Spain). But when the cost is multiplied by 4 the average inflation only doubles (2.45056). The minimum consumption index under scenario 1.II (which corresponds to Brazil) only increases about 1.6 percent. These results are quite reasonable; however, comparing assumption I, II and III under scenario 2 we find some odd results. Specifically, some of the consumption indexes would increase dramatically (especially under 2.II). This is the case of Spain (13.02502), Estonia (13.01886) and Latvia (13.01886). If China would agree to have the same target as USA has the country who would bear the lowest inflation would be Brazil, but if this target would be accepted by all non- Annex B countries the surprising result is that this position would be occupied by USA. All these results have to be taken with the maximum caution since the calculus have not been doing with the latest version of the WIOD. However, they are a sample of the potentially of this database. Table 1: Consumption Indexes SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 COUNTRY Ass. I Ass. II Ass. III Ass. I Ass. II Ass. III Ass. I Ass. II Ass. III AUS 1,00197 1,25682 1,25727 1,00748 1,97485 1,97656 1,00563 1,73376 1,73505 AUT 1,00221 1,15722 1,15756 1,00838 1,59680 1,59810 1,00631 1,44921 1,45018 BEL 1,00271 1,15331 1,15393 1,01030 1,58194 1,58432 1,00776 1,43802 1,43981 BGR 1,00468 1,09067 1,09155 1,01776 1,34418 1,34751 1,01337 1,25906 1,26157 BRA 1,00010 1,01591 1,03355 1,00039 1,06041 1,12735 1,00029 1,04547 1,09585 CAN 1,00188 1,02448 1,02481 1,00713 1,09294 1,09418 1,00537 1,06995 1,07089 CHN 1,00018 1,06635 1,06706 1,00068 1,25187 1,25455 1,00051 1,18958 1,19160 CYP 1,00028 1,07676 1,07712 1,00107 1,29136 1,29272 1,00080 1,21931 1,22033 CZE 1,00128 1,16256 1,16298 1,00484 1,61708 1,61864 1,00365 1,46447 1,46565 DEU 1,00218 1,08588 1,08627 1,00829 1,32599 1,32747 1,00624 1,24537 1,24648 DNK 1,00260 1,64464 1,64505 1,00986 3,44701 3,44857 1,00742 2,84184 2,84301 ESP 1,00280 4,16788 4,16825 1,01064 13,02502 13,02644 1,00801 10,05109 10,05215 EST 1,00089 4,16626 4,16670 1,00336 13,01886 13,02055 1,00253 10,04645 10,04772 FIN 1,00147 1,13526 1,13561 1,00559 1,51343 1,51477 1,00421 1,38645 1,38746 FRA 1,00058 1,09989 1,10018 1,00220 1,37919 1,38026 1,00166 1,28541 1,28622 GBR 1,00153 1,35208 1,35242 1,00580 2,33648 2,33777 1,00436 2,00595 2,00693 GRC 1,00465 1,08236 1,08268 1,01765 1,31265 1,31384 1,01328 1,23533 1,23622 9
HUN 1,00183 1,12985 1,13023 1,00695 1,49292 1,49433 1,00523 1,37101 1,37207 IDN 1,00023 1,02722 1,05104 1,00088 1,10332 1,19375 1,00066 1,07776 1,14583 IND 1,00009 1,01650 1,03654 1,00036 1,06264 1,13870 1,00027 1,04715 1,10440 IRL 1,00046 1,10707 1,10745 1,00174 1,40643 1,40789 1,00131 1,30591 1,30701 ITA 1,00109 1,08954 1,08985 1,00416 1,33988 1,34108 1,00313 1,25582 1,25672 JPN 1,00068 1,03039 1,03069 1,00258 1,11537 1,11650 1,00194 1,08684 1,08769 KOR 1,00021 3,14605 3,15825 1,00080 9,14622 9,19255 1,00060 7,13156 7,16643 LTU 1,00272 1,34718 1,34747 1,01033 2,31788 2,31895 1,00778 1,99195 1,99276 LUX 1,00125 1,08161 1,08201 1,00474 1,30979 1,31129 1,00357 1,23318 1,23430 LVA 1,00073 4,12680 4,12716 1,00277 12,86907 12,87044 1,00209 9,93371 9,93474 MEX 1,00031 1,02194 1,02761 1,00116 1,08328 1,10479 1,00088 1,06269 1,07888 MLT 1,00057 1,14549 1,14606 1,00215 1,55226 1,55444 1,00162 1,41568 1,41732 NLD 1,00084 1,42795 1,42861 1,00318 2,62447 2,62697 1,00240 2,22272 2,22460 POL 1,00073 1,19727 1,19763 1,00277 1,74882 1,75017 1,00209 1,56363 1,56465 PRT 1,00213 1,39309 1,39360 1,00810 2,49214 2,49407 1,00610 2,12312 2,12457 ROM 1,00039 1,08332 1,08385 1,00149 1,31628 1,31827 1,00112 1,23806 1,23956 RUS 1,00238 2,98788 2,98848 1,00902 8,54584 8,54809 1,00679 6,67967 6,68136 SVK 1,00060 2,31642 2,31693 1,00227 5,99704 5,99894 1,00171 4,76121 4,76264 SVN 1,00232 1,11006 1,11095 1,00881 1,41780 1,42116 1,00663 1,31447 1,31700 SWE 1,00063 2,10055 2,10089 1,00240 5,17758 5,17890 1,00181 4,14442 4,14540 TUR 1,00023 1,05655 1,06164 1,00088 1,21465 1,23399 1,00066 1,16156 1,17612 TWN 1,00030 1,03832 1,04468 1,00115 1,14545 1,16959 1,00086 1,10948 1,12765 USA 1,00136 1,01640 1,01668 1,00515 1,06227 1,06332 1,00388 1,04687 1,04766 RoW 1,00046 1,07978 1,08061 1,00175 1,30283 1,30599 1,00131 1,22793 1,23032 Source: Own calculations. Note: For the meaning of the countries acronyms see Table A of the Appendix section. 5. Conclusions This paper starts from the assumption that industries incur extra costs per ton of emitted pollutants (e.g. CO 2 abatement costs, emission allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, environmental taxes, opportunity costs), which are necessary to reduce the present amount of pollution. It is further assumed that all producers fully pass these costs on to the buyers of their products. As a consequence, this will affect the value of consumption. This extra cost to consumers can be viewed as a change in the consumption price index. The aim of this paper is to give some insights in the extra costs for consumers if Annex B countries had fulfilled the targets of the Kyoto protocol. Using the World Input-Output Tables of the WIOD project, this paper analyses different scenarios. The main results show that, in 10
general, consumers might well be able to bear the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol. In this paper we analyse what would have been the cost for final consumers if Annex B countries had fulfilled their Kyoto emission targets. The preliminary results show that in the most likely situation, i.e. if all Annex B countries would have ratified the protocol and fulfilled their respective binding emission ceilings, consumers might well be able to bear the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol. However, different results have been obtained from other hypothetical situations exhibiting the important role played by China as it has been reflected in the strained negotiations. Notwithstanding, these outcomes have to be taken with extremely caution and always as an approximation of what would have been the real situation. On one hand, the calculus has been carried out using a preliminary version of the WIOD. And on the other hand, due to the availability and characteristics of this database, neither the base year (1995) nor the year of action (2006) coincide with the reality (1990 and 2012, respectively). This fact would be relevant for the latter since the economic crisis started in 2009 have had important influenced on the emission levels. References Bulmer-Thomas, V. (1982) Input-Output Analysis in Developing countries: sources, methods and applications, Chichester [etc.]: John Wiley & Sons. Dietzenbacher, E. (1997) In Vindication of the Ghosh Model: A Reinterpretation as a Price Model, Journal of Regional Science, 37, 629-651. Ellerman, A.D., P.L Joskow (2008) The European Union s Emissions Trading System in perspective, document prepared for the Pew Center on Glogal Climate Change, Cambridge, US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, available at http://www.pewclimate.org/docuploads/eu-ets-in-perspective- Report.pdf 11
ICCF, The International Council for Capital Formation (2005) Reports on the Economic Cost of the Kyoto Protocol to Italy, Spain and the UK, Brussels: ICCF, available at http://www.iccfglobal.org/research/climate/index.html IEA, International Energy Agency (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009, Paris: OCDE, available at http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/ IPCC (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, 3 volumes, London: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ McKinsey & Company (2009) Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve, McKinsey Solutions, available at https://solutions.mckinsey.com/climatedesk/default.aspx Miller, R.E., P.D. Blair (2009) Input-Output Analysis. Foundations and Extensions. 2 nd edition. Cambridge [etc]: Cambridge University Press. Oosterhaven, J. (1996) Leontief versus Ghoshian Price and Quantity Model, Southern Economic Journal, 62, 750-759. Russ, P., J.C. Ciscar, B. Saveyn, A. Soria, L. Szábó, T. van Ierland, D. van Regemorter, R. Virdis (2009) Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models, EUR 23768 EN-2099, Insitute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. United Nations (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 10 December 1997, (FCCC/CP/L.7/Add.1). Weyant, J. (Eds) (1999) The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, The Energy Journal, Special Issue, May 1999, 390 pp. 12
Appendix Table A: List of countries and corresponding Kyoto targets COUNTRY TARGET NOTES AUS Australia 108 AUT Austria 87 (1) BEL Belgium 92.5 (1) BGR Bulgaria 92 (2) BRA Brazil (3) CAN Canada 94 CHN China (3) CYP Cyprus (2) CZE Czech Republic 92 (2) DEU Germany 79 (1) DNK Denmark 79 (1) ESP Spain 115 (1) EST Estonia 92 (2) FIN Finland 97.4 (1) FRA France 98.1 (1) GBR United Kingdom 87.5 (1) GRC Greece 125 (1) HUN Hungary 94 (2) IDN Indonesia (3) IND India (3) IRL Ireland 113 (1) ITA Italy 93.5 (1) JPN Japan 94 KOR South Korea (3) LTU Lithuania 92 (2) LUX Luxembourg 72 (1) LVA Latvia 92 (2) MEX Mexico (3) MLT Malta (2) NLD Netherlands 94 (1) POL Poland 94 (2) PRT Portugal 127 (1) ROM Romania 92 (2) RUS Russia 100 SVK Slovak Republic 92 (2) SVN Slovenia 92 (2) SWE Sweden 104 (1) TUR Turkey TWN Taiwan (3) 13
USA United States 93 Not ratified in 2005 RoW Rest of the World (3) Source: United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change. Information available at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php Notes: (1) European Union 15: they have a global target of 92. (2) European Union: they enter in the EU later than 2004 and 2007; they have their own Kyoto targets. (3) Non Annex B countries. 14