Affiliation:
1. Department of Economics , 150402 University of Leeds, Leeds University Business School , Maurice Keyworth Building , Leeds , LS2 9JT , UK
2. 372835 New School for Social Research Department of Economics , New York , NY , USA
3. University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstraße 25 , Bielefeld D-33615 , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
This paper employs a dynamic multi-sector growth model with changing technology to study the relevance of the price and quantity dimensions involved in the technical substitution of carbon-intensive technology, that is, the low-carbon transition. For the framing of the transition, the stylized market dynamics by Flaschel and Semmler (1987. “Classical and Neoclassical Competitive Adjustment Processes.” The Manchester School 55 (1): 13–37) are used, who propose a cross-dual out-of-equilibrium adjustment process. The major empirical challenge to identify the adjustment speed for quantities and prices is to empirically estimate sector-specific adjustment coefficients. The transition speed is estimated for seven carbon-intensive sectors in six high-income economies (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, and the US) using a mixed-effects varying-slopes model on EU KLEMS data. Directed technical change is enforced by a revenue-neutral, pro-active fiscal policy of a tax–subsidy form, which has the effect to greatly accelerate the phase-out of carbon-intensive technology and the phase-in of green technology. The speed of green substitution that allows decarbonization is then evaluated analytically and computationally along four policy and time dimensions: cost advantage, a percentage tax on carbon-intensive output, a green subsidy rate, and initial investment ratios. Though the tax itself has an impact on the speed of decarbonization, it is significantly improved by green subsidies and green investments. The cost advantage of the green over the carbon technology is shown to have a negligible impact on decarbonization speed by itself. Without ambitious fiscal policy, especially in the form of green investment support, this substitution process appears to be too slow to reach decarbonization in a timely manner.
Reference60 articles.
1. Acemoglu, D., P. Aghion, L. Bursztyn, and D. Hemous. 2012. “The Environment and Directed Technical Change.” American Economic Review 102 (1): 131–66. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131.
2. Acemoglu, D., U. Akcigit, D. Hanley, and W. Kerr. 2016. “Transition to Clean Technology.” Journal of Political Economy 124 (1): 52–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/684511.
3. Ball, J. 2018. “Hot Air Won’t Fly: The New Climate Consensus that Carbon Pricing Isn’t Cutting It.” Joule 2 (12): 2491–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.11.019.
4. Blum, J., R. de Britto Schiller, A. Löschel, J. Pfeiffer, K. Pittel, N. Potrafke, and A. Schmitt. 2019. “Zur Bepreisung von CO2-Emissionen–Ergebnisse aus dem Ökonomenpanel.” IFO Schnelldienst 72 (16): 60–5.
5. Braga, J. P., W. Semmler, and D. Grass. 2021. “De-Risking of Green Investments through a Green Bond Market–Empirics and a Dynamic Model.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 131: 104201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2021.104201.