Environmental and Resource Economics Review (자원ㆍ환경경제연구)

Korean Resource Economics Association (한국자원경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Empirical Study on Impacts of Overlapping Climate and Energy Policies on Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

기후변화 대응에 관한 혼합정책이 온실가스 감축에 미치는 효과에 관한 실증연구

  • Received : 2014.11.08
  • Accepted : 2014.11.28
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Many countries have implemented a variety of climate and energy policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand renewable energy production. The ultimate goals of those policies are associated with transition to a low-carbon economy that aims to combat climate change and economic growth. This study aims to examine empirically if the countries which implement overlapping climate policies and renewable energy policies show additional reduction of the GHG emissions than the countries which implement single climate or renewable energy policy. The result shows that overlapping policies contribute to reduce additional GHG but not all cases. In particular, only overlapping policies mixing 'ETS and RPS(renewable portfolio standards)' and 'Carbon Tax and FIT(Feed-in Tariff)' can lead to additional reduction of GHG emissions.

전 세계는 기후변화 대응과 경제성장을 목표로 하는 저탄소 경제로의 전환을 위해 다양한 온실가스 감축정책과 재생에너지 확대정책을 시행하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 전 세계 국가들을 대상으로 다양한 온실가스 감축 정책 및 재생에너지정책들이 동시에 시행되는 국가들의 경우 단일한 온실가스 감축 정책이나 재생에너지 정책만이 시행되는 국가들보다 추가적인 온실가스 감축이 이루어졌는지를 실증 분석하였다. 전 세계 온실가스 감축 정책 및 재생에너지 확대 정책을 실시하고 있는 나라들을 대상으로 한 패널계량분석을 실시한 결과, 온실가스 감축정책 혼합이 온실가스 추가 감축에 일부 기여하는 것으로 나타났으나, 모든 정책 혼합이 추가적인 온실가스 감축을 유도하지는 않는 것으로 분석되었다. 즉, 배출권거래제도와 재생에너지 공급의무화제도(RPS, Renewable Portfolio Standards)의 정책 혼합과 탄소세제와 발전차액지원제도(FIT, Feed-in Tariff)의 정책 혼합만이 추가적인 온실가스 감축효과를 거둘 수 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 정경화, 2011, "RPS와 환경규제가 탄소저감기술 R&D에 미치는 영향에 대한 이론적 분석," 에너지경제연구, 제10권, 제2호, pp. 1-26.
  2. Abrell, J. and H. Weigt, 2008. "The Interaction of Emissions Trading and Renewable Energy Promotion". Working Paper No. WP-EGW-05. Dresden, Germany: Dresden University of Technology.
  3. Aiken, D. V., R. Fare, S. Grosskopf, and C. A. Jr. Pasurka, "Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, and the United States," Environmental Resource and Economics, Vol. 44, 2009, pp. 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9256-2
  4. Amundsen, E. S. and J. B. Mortensen, 2001. "The Danish Green Certificates Scheme: Some Simple Analytical Results." Energy Economics, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(01)00079-2
  5. Ang, B. W. and F. Q. Zhang, "Inter-Regional Comparisons of Energy-Related $CO_2$ Emissions Using the Decomposition Technique," Energy 24, 1999, pp. 297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00092-9
  6. Arcelus, F. J. and P. Arocena, "Productivity Differences Across OECD Countries in The Presence of Environmental Constraints," Journal of the Operational Research Society 56, 2005, pp. 1352-1362. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601942
  7. Barassi, M. R. and N. Spagnolo, 2012, Linear and Non-linear Causality between $CO_2$ Emissions and Economic Growth, The Energy Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 23-38.
  8. Bohringer, C. and K. E. Rosendahl, 2010. "Green Promotes the Dirtiest: On the Interaction between Black and Green Quotas in Energy Markets". Journal of Regulatory Economics, Vol. 37, pp. 316-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-010-9116-1
  9. Cole, M. A., 2003, "Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 71-81.
  10. De Jonghe, C., R. B. Delarue, and W. D'haeseleer, 2009. "Interactions between Measures for the Support of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sourcese and $CO_2$ Mitigation." Energy Policy, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 4743-4752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.033
  11. Eskeland, G. S. and A. E. Harrison, 2003. "Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis," Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00084-6
  12. Fischer, C. and L. Preonas, 2010. "Combining Policies for Renewable Energy: Is the Whole Less Than the Sum of Its Parts?" International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, Washington, DC. Vol. 4, pp. 51-92. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000030
  13. Greene, W., 2008, Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education.
  14. Grossman, G. M. and A. B. Kruger, 1991, "Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper 3914. NBER. Cambridge, MA.
  15. Morris, J. F., 2009. "Combining a Renewable Portfolio Standard with a Cap-and-Trade Policy: A General Equilibrium Analysis". M.S. Thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  16. Paltsev, S. et al. 2009. "The Cost of Climate Policy in the Untied States." Energy Economics, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. S235-S243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.005
  17. Pethig, R. and C. Wittlich, 2009. "Interactions of Carbon Reduction and Green Energy Promotion in s small Fossil-Fuel Importing Economy". CESifo Working Paper Series No.2749. Munich, Germany.
  18. Roberts, M. and M. Spence, 1976, Effluent Charges and Licenses Under Uncertainty, Journal of Public Economics 5, pp. 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(76)90014-1
  19. Sorrell, S. 2003. "Who owns the Carbon? Interactions between the EU Emission Trading Scheme and the UK Renewables Obligation and Energy Efficiency Committee". Science and Technology Policy Research, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series no.100, University of Sussex, Brighton.
  20. Unger, T. and E. O. Ahlgre, 2005. "Impacts of the German Support for Renewable Energy on Electricity and $CO_2$-Emission markets in the Nordic countries". Energy Policy, Vol. 33, No. 16, pp. 2152-2163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.04.013

Cited by

  1. Study of Selected IPCC Methodologies for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Landfill vol.25, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7844/kirr.2016.25.5.28