4.7 Article

Rebound effect of improved energy efficiency for different energy types: A general equilibrium analysis for China

Journal

ENERGY ECONOMICS
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages 248-256

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.010

Keywords

Rebound effect; Energy efficiency policy; China; CGE model

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the rebound effect of different energy types in China based on a static computable general equilibrium model. A one-off 5% energy efficiency improvement is imposed on five different types of energy, respectively, in all the 135 production sectors in China. The rebound effect is measured both on the production level and on the economy-wide level for each type of energy. The results show that improving energy efficiency of using electricity has the largest positive impact on GDP among the five energy types. Inter-fuel substitutability does not affect the macroeconomic results significantly, but long-run impact is usually greater than the short-run impact. For the exports-oriented sectors, those that are capital-intensive get big negative shock in the short run while those that are labour-intensive get hurt in the long run. There is no backfire effect; however, improving efficiency of using electricity can cause negative rebound, which implies that improving the energy efficiency of using electricity might be a good policy choice under China's current energy structure. In general, macro-level rebound is larger than production-level rebound. Primary energy goods show larger rebound effect than secondary energy goods. In addition, the paper points out that the policy makers in China should look at the rebound effect in the long term rather than in the short term. The energy efficiency policy would be a good and effective policy choice for energy conservation in China when it still has small inter-fuel substitution. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available