Search

Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 2 of 2)



The Capital-Energy Controversy: An Artifact of Cost Shares?

Manuel Frondel and Christoph M. Schmidt

Year: 2002
Volume: Volume23
Number: Number 3
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol23-No3-3
View Abstract

Abstract:
Any serious empirical study of factor substitutability has to allow the data to display complementarity as well as substitutability. The standard approach reflecting this idea is a translog specification-this is also the approach used by the majority of studies analyzing the substitutability of energy and capital. Yet, the substitutability between capital and energy and the source of discrepancies in the results still remain controversial. This paper offers a straightforward explanation for at least the divergent results provided by the translog studies: Using a translog approach reduces the issue of factor substitutability to a question of cost shares. Our review of translog studies demonstrates that this argument is empirically far more relevant than the distinction between time-series and panel studies being favored in the literature. More generally, we provide ample empirical evidence for our argument that the magnitudes of cross price elasticity estimates of two factors gleaned from static approaches like the translog functional form are mainly driven by the cost shares of these factors.



Energy R&D Investments and Emissions Abatement Policy

Di Yin and Youngho Chang

Year: 2020
Volume: Volume 41
Number: Number 6
DOI: 10.5547/01956574.41.6.dyin
View Abstract

Abstract:
The study examines the interactions of the energy R&D investments and the CO2 abatement policy using an endogenous energy R&D climate-economy model. Energy R&D investments affect the carbon emissions directly through efficiency improvements and indirectly by changing the comparative advantages of resources. This study considers the R&D investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon technology and explores how energy R&D investments accelerate the energy transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon technology. Three policies of carbon abatements are considered, namely, the optimal policy, the 2 �C policy, and the 1.5 �C policy. From the perspectives of benefits and costs, the optimal policy leads to the least abatement costs compared to the other two abatement policies. This study indicates that the more restrictive the abatement policy is, the more severe economic damage is caused in the short run, but more economic welfare is gained in the long run. Keywords: Energy R&D investments, Emissions abatement policy, Energy efficiency, Backstop technology, Energy substitution, Cost-benefit analysis, Climate change





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 

© 2022 International Association for Energy Economics | Privacy Policy | Return Policy