Table 30. Comparison of
Results for Reducing Carbon Emissions to 7 Percent Below 1990 Levels
Without Trading, Sinks, Offsets, or Clean Development Mechanism
| > Projection |
MIT |
EPRIa |
CRA |
EIA |
PNNL |
WEFA |
2010 |
||||||
Carbon Price (1996 Dollars per Metric Ton) |
266 | 280 | 295 | 348 | 221 | 265 |
| Change in
Actual Gross Domestic Product From Reference Projection |
||||||
| Percent | -1.5b | -1.0 | -2.1 | -4.2 | NA | -3.2 |
| Billion 1996 Dollars | -156 | -102 | -227 | -437 | NA | -332 |
| Loss in
Potential Gross Domestic Product Relative to Reference Projection (Billion 1996 Dollars) |
NA | 73 | 82 | 79 to 94c | 65 | 60 |
| Change in Carbon Intensity (Percent) | NA | -27.9 | -32 | -26 | -31 | -24.5 |
| Change in Fossil Fuel Consumption (Percent) | NA | -19.3 to -23.9d | -30.3 | -22.1 | -24.5 | -20.9 |
2020 |
||||||
| Carbon Price (1996 Dollars per Metric Ton) | 147 | 251 | 316 | 305 | 286 | 360 |
| Change in
Actual Gross Domestic Product From Reference Projection |
||||||
| Percent | -1.5b | -0.96 | -2.4 | -0.8 | NA | -2.0 |
| Billion 1996 Dollars | -156 | -120 | -311 | -91 | NA | -257 |
| Loss in
Potential Gross Domestic Product Relative to Reference Projection (Billion 1996 Dollars) |
NA | 81 | 111 | 75 to 103c | 109 | 130 |
| Change in Carbon Intensity (Percent) | NA | -32.2 | -31.0 | -38.9 | -36.9 | -35.9 |
| Change in Fossil Fuel Consumption (Percent) | NA | -24.0 to -32.3e | -35.1 | -25.7 | -29.6 | -28.4 |
|
aEPRI allows 50 million metric tons for sinks in this case. bThe percentage represents MIT's upper bound estimate, including some macroeconomic adjustment costs. MIT provided a range from -0.5 to-1.5 percent for change in GDP, to be interpreted as minimum and maximum losses to the economy. For the purposes of this chapter, the lowest range is the irreducible economic loss. Because GDP was not provided for the MIT reference case, the reader may assume a central value for GDP of $9,400 billion in 2010 and $10,900 in 2020 (1992 dollars). Consequently, the range of losses is $52 billion to $156 billion in 2010 (1996 dollars). cThe losses in potential GDP for EIA shown in Tables 30 and 31 use two different concepts, which give slightly different results. One uses the computation of potential GDP that is derived from the DRI model as described in Chapter 6 of this report. The second uses the approximation method under the carbon reduction versus carbon price curve, also discussed in Chapter 6. The two calculations produce nearly identical results for the 1990-3% case. For the 1990-7% case, the DRI calculation produces a smaller estimate of potential GDP losses. For all other cases, the DRI calculation produces a higher estimate of potential GDP losses. Because the projections from analyses other than EIA's were calculated using the approximation method related to the carbon reduction versus carbon price curve, estimates from both the DRI and approximation methods are provided for the EIA study. dOnly total primary energy was provided. Fossil fuel consumption was derived by subtracting an estimate for nuclear energy and renewable energy ranging from 13 to 17 quadrillion Btu from total primary energy for 2010. eOnly total primary energy was provided. Fossil fuel consumption was derived by subtracting an estimate for nuclear energy and renewable energy of 12 to 20 quadrillion Btu from total primary energy for 2020. NA = not available. Sources: EIA: National Energy Modeling System, run FD07BLW.D080398B. WEFA: WEFA, Inc., Global Warming: The High Cost of the Kyoto Protocol, National and State Impacts (Eddystone, PA, 1998). PNNL: E-mail of data from PNNL with explanation of GDP effect received from Ronald Sands of PNNL on August 26, 1998. CRA: Paul M. Bernstein, Charles River Associates, e-mail communications, August 24, 1998. EPRI: E-mail provided by R. Richels of EPRI on July 6, 1998. MIT: Facsimile dated July 10, 1998, from Prof. Henry Jacoby, MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts. |
||||||