1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org November 2008  RFF DP 08-37



# Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry

Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang ShihDISCUSSION PAPER© 2008 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors. Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review. 

## Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry

Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang Shih

Abstract
This paper informs the discussion of carbon price policies by examining the potential for adverse impacts on domestic industries, with a focus on de tailed sector-level analysis. The assumed policy scenario involves a unilateral economy-wide $10/ton CO 2 charge without accompanying border tax adjustments or other complementary policies. Four modeling approaches are developed as a proxy for the different time horizons over which firms can pass th rough added costs, change input mix, adopt new technologies, and reallocate capital. Overall, we find th at a readily identifiable set of industries experience particularly adverse impacts as measured by reduced output and that the relative burdens on different industries are remarkably consistent across the four time horizons. Output rebounds considerably over longer time horizons, and the adverse impacts on profits diminish even more rapidly in most cases. Over the short term employment losses mirror output declines, while gains in other industries fully offset the losses over the longer horizons. At the same time, leak age abroad is considerable in some sectors, particularly when reductions in exports are considered.

Key Words: carbon price, competitivene ss, input-output analysis

JEL Classification Numbers: F14, D 21, D57, D58, H23Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. ... i

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ ......... 1
II. Other Studies on Detailed Industry Impacts................................................................... 4 Very Short–Run Time Horizon........................................................................................... 5

Short-Run Time Horizon .................................................................................................... 6 Medium- and Long-Run Analyses Based on CGE Analyses ............................................. 8
III. Methodology to Analyze Di fferent Time Horizons ..................................................... 10 Very Short–Run Horizon Where Qu antities Cannot Be Changed.................................... 17 Short-Run Horizon with Higher Ou tput Price and Lower Sales....................................... 19 Medium-Term Horizon When Input Mix May Be Changed ............................................ 21 Long-Run Horizon When Capital May Be Reallocated ................................................... 22
IV. Implementation: Data Construction and Simulation Model...................................... 22

Data........................................................................................................................... ........ 22 Multisector General Equilibrium Model........................................................................... 23
V. Industry Patterns of Output, Energy Use, Carbon Intensity, and Imports ............... 25 Energy Consumption Patterns and Carbon Intensity........................................................ 25
Import Exposure................................................................................................................ 26

VI. Effects of a Carbon Tax over Different Time Horizons.............................................. 26 Effects on Costs and Output—Very Short–Run Horizon................................................. 27 Effects on Costs, Profits, and Output—Shor t Run versus the Very Short Run................ 28 Effects on Output over the Four Time Horizons .............................................................. 30 Employment and Capital Utilization over Time............................................................... 33 Trade Impacts.................................................................................................................. .. 35
VII. Cross-Model Comparisons........................................................................................... 37

VIII. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. .... 39

References..................................................................................................................... ......... 41Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

Tables ......................................................................................................................... ............ 43
Appendix A. Data............................................................................................................... ... 58 A.1 Constructing an Input–Output Matrix for 2002 ......................................................... 58 A.2 Energy Use................................................................................................................. 59

A.3 CO 2 Emissions and Intensity..................................................................................... 63
Appendix A. Tables............................................................................................................. .. 63
Appendix B. Adkins–Garbaccio CGE Model..................................................................... 80
Appendix B. Tables............................................................................................................. .. 80Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

i 

## Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry

Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang Shih *

Executive Summary

As the United States moves toward mandato ry action on climate change, an important consideration is the potential for new policies to cause significant declines in some domestic industries, with corresponding in creases in imports and producti on elsewhere in the world. This is especially the case if the po licy is unilateral, without a corre sponding effort from U.S. trading
partners.
This possibility gives rise to two serious concerns:

• potential damage to the domestic economy, especially to the subset of industries that may be vulnerable to unilateral, or near unilateral, carbon mitigation policies;
and

• erosion of a domestic policy’ s environmental benefits if an increase in domestic production costs causes manufacturing to shift to nations that have weaker greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies or none at all.
The effects of a unilateral policy placing a price on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) will vary greatly across domestic industries. The industry- level impacts are fundamentally tied to the energy (more specifically, the carbon) intensity of those industries and the degree to which they can pass costs on to consumers of their products (often other industries). The strength of competition from imports and consumers’ ability to substitute other, less carbon-intensive alternatives for a given product play crucial roles in determining the ultimate impacts on domestic production and employment.

* Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang Sh ih are visiting scholar, senior fellow, and fellow, respectively, at Resources for the Fu ture. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from both the National Commission on Energy Policy and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

ii The potential economic consequences for U.S. industry are unprecedented in the history of environmental regulation due to the scale of activity affect ed by a unilateral, economywide
CO 2 pricing policy. It would not onl y have significant direct imp acts on coal, and other domestic energy industries, it could adversely affect th e competitiveness of a number of large energyintensive, import-sensitive ma nufacturing industries. Unfortun ately, information concerning specific industry-level impacts associated with new carbon mitigation policies is quite limited.
The most common approach to assessing the im pact of carbon-control policies is to focus on the long-run impacts, after firms have adju sted by using new energy-efficient technologies and new import patterns have been established. Such analysis, however, fails to capture an important part of the story—the short-run costs that most firms will experience. A chemical or steel plant suddenly faced with higher energy costs cannot immediat ely or costlessly convert to more energy-efficient methods.
From a policy perspective, the path taken to the long-run out come is extremely important. A carbon control policy that ignores these short- and medium-term impact s will raise concerns about fairness and will likely be opposed by many stakeholders. Further, the appropriate policy response can change over time; a policy that addr esses fairness questions in the initial years may not be appropriate in the future.
We recently examined how a unilateral, economywide CO 2 pricing policy would affect a large set of industries, taking into account the wa ys that adjustment costs may change over time. To paint a full picture, we employed four di fferent modeling approaches using consistent assumptions in order to consider outc omes along four different time scales:

1. The very short run, where firms cannot adju st prices and profits fall accordingly.

2. The short run where firms can raise prices to reflect the higher energy costs, with a corresponding decline in sales as a resu lt of product or import substitution.

3. The medium run, when in addition to th e changes in output prices, the mix of inputs may also change, but capital rema ins in place, and economywide effects
are considered.

4. The long run, when capital may be reallo cated and replaced with more energy efficient technologies.
Impacts were measured in terms of costs, profits, employment , and trade effects, assuming a unilateral $10/ton CO 2 price without any offsetting measures regarding permit allocation or border adjustments and without a ny stipulated policies by trading partners.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

iii Findings
After examining these different time horizons and impacts, our results yield a number of observations. (For more details, se e tables at end of full paper.)

• Measured by the reduction in domestic output, a readily identifiable set of industries is at greatest risk of co ntraction over both the short and long

terms. Within the manufacturing sector, at a relatively aggregat ed, two- or threedigit standard industrial cl assification level, the ha rdest hit industries are: petroleum refining, chemicals and plastic s, primary metals, and nonmetallic
minerals.

• Although the short-run output reducti ons are relatively large in these industries, they shrink over time as firms adjust inputs and adopt new technologies. The industries that continue to be ar the impacts are generally the same ones affected initially, albeit at re duced levels. When measured in terms of reduced profits, the rebound is especially large and, for some industries, virtually complete.

• Focusing on the nearer-term time frames, where certain simplifying assumptions enable us to conduct a mo re disaggregated analysis, we observe that the largest cost increases are con centrated in particular segments of
these industries. Using a broad definition of cost s that includes capital inputs, petrochemical manufacturing and cement see very short-run cost increases of more than four percent from a mode st charge of $10 per ton of CO 2 , while iron and steel mills, aluminum, and lime produc ts see cost increases exceeding two
percent.

• In the nonmanufacturing sector, we see that although the overall size of the production losses also declines over time, a more diverse pattern applies. Specifically, the impact on electric util ities does not substantially worsen over time (compared to other industries such as mining, which experiences a continuing erosion of sales) as br oader adjustments occur throughout the economy. Agriculture faces modest but persistent output declines over time, while the service sector is largel y unscathed across all timeframes.

• In terms of employment, short-term jo b losses are modeled as proportional to those of output. Over the longer term, however, when labor markets are ableResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

iv to adjust, the remaining, relatively small, losses are fully offset by gains in other
industries.

• Overall, the leakage rate (that is, th e rate at which reductions in U.S. emissions is offset by increases in foreign emissions) is estimated to be about 25 percent . For the three most energy-intensi ve sectors, chemicals, nonmetallic mineral products, and primary metals, the leakage due to imports and exports is
more than 40 percent.
Policymakers have a number of tools at thei r disposal to address the competitiveness challenges that are likely to accompany a carbon-pricing policy. These options include: weaker overall program targets, partial or full exemp tion from the carbon policy, standards instead of market-based policies for some sectors, free a llowance under a cap-and-trade system, and traderelated policies, including some form of border adjustment for energy- or carbon-intensive goods.
For a more in-depth discussion of policy options, see “ Addressing Competitiveness Concerns in the Context of a Mandatory Policy for Reducin g U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” by Richard Morgenstern. Issue Brief # 8 in Assessing U.S. Climate Policy Options, Raymond J. Kopp and William A. Pizer, editors. RFF Report, Nov. 2007. www.rff.org/Publications/Pages/CPF_A ssessingUSClimatePolicyOptions_IB8.aspx

Modeling Results

Short-Run Output Effects
In the short run, producers raise prices to c over the higher unit co sts when a price is placed on carbon. Unlike a very-short term effect, which does not allow for behavioral responses by firms or individuals, here customers are able to switch to alternativ e goods and/or imports, leading to a fall in sales and output. The output decline varies among industries, but it can be significant for energy intensive industries like petrochemical manufacturing and fossil fuel suppliers (see Table 4 at end of full paper).

Medium and Long Term Output Effects
Over the medium term, firms can adjust their input mix to adapt to higher energy prices, thus reducing their vulnerability to the new tax. At the same time, however, consumers areResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

v adjusting their purchases to a void the higher prices for carbo n-intensive products and thus reducing their demands. The cost-red ucing effect of input substituti on is generally dominant (see Table 6 at end of full paper). Over time, for all but two manufacturi ng industries (petroleum refining and fabricated metals), the cost shoc k of the carbon tax is reduced, and smaller price
increases are needed to cover the hi gher costs of carbon-intensive inputs.
A further metric of importance is the impact on employment. As is the case with output, only for petroleum refining and fabricated metals is the reduction in empl oyment larger in the medium- and long-term horizons compared to the short-run, no-substitution case. Going from the medium to the long run where firms can switch ca pital, the reduction in employment diminishes
in all cases. In two extreme ma nufacturing cases, apparel and elec trical machinery, the mediumrun employment reductions turn to gains in the long run. That is, the ability to substitute capital for the more expensive carbon-inte nsive inputs in the long run l eads to bigger reductions in energy consumption and smaller reductions in labor use.
In the nonmanufacturing industries, we also see a smaller employment impact in the medium run compared to the short run except fo r two industries, the most interesting being electric utilities, where output falls by 1.4 pe rcent but employment rises by 8 percent in the medium run. Going from the medium to long run, the three fossil-fuel mining industries actually see greater employment losses. Th at is, users of fuels substitute capital for fuel over the longer term and the demand for coal, oil, and ga s falls, leading to lower employment.
Capital use in the long run is driven by two opposing effects. On one hand, outputs from carbon-intensive sectors are diminished, reducing th e demand for capital. On the other, there is substitution from expensive energy to cheaper cap ital, which increases the demand for capital in these sectors. The net effect is negative for all but three manufacturing in dustries. That is, the reduction in capital demand due to the reduction in output dominates the substitution of capital for energy in most industries. The capital that moves out of the decl ining carbon-intensive sectors goes to services and, perh aps surprisingly, to the electr icity sector. For manufacturing industries, only in the food, apparel, and el ectrical machinery indus tries are th e long-run demands for capital slig htly higher after a car bon tax is in place.

Trade Impacts
The trade impacts are displayed in Table 8 (at end of full paper). National domestic consumption is the sum of consumption by firms, households, and government and is equal to domestic output plus imports less exports. The second column gives the changes in consumptionResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

vi due to a $10/ton CO 2 tax, while the last three columns present the contributions of the changes in terms of output, imports, and exports. We can se e a consistent pattern among carbon-intensive manufacturing industries: a modest increase in imports and a bigger reduction in exports. Overall, the emissions increase in the rest of the world is 26 percent of the reduction in U.S.
emissions as a result of a unilateral U.S. carbon ta x. This is a relatively high leakage rate but
consistent with other studies.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

1 

## Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry

Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang Shih

I. Introduction

As the United States moves toward mandato ry action on climate change an important consideration is the potential for new policies to cause significant declines in some domestic industries, along with corresponding increases in production elsewhere in the world. The possibility of such impacts gives rise to at l east two major concerns. Th e first concern involves the risk of damage to the domestic economy, especially to the subs et of carbon-intensive industries that is particularly vulnerable to domestic carbon pric ing policies. Unilateral or nearunilateral policies would ex acerbate this risk. The second concern relates directly to the potential for emissions leakage, i.e., incr eases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emi ssions in the rest of the world in response to the domestic policy. Since climat e change is driven by global emissions, the environmental benefits of a domestic policy co uld be substantially eroded if an increase in domestic production costs caused the manufacture of emissions-intensive goods to shift to nations that have weaker GHG mitiga tion policies, or none at all.
The impact of a CO 2 price on domestic industries is f undamentally tied to the energy (more specifically, the carbon) inte nsity of those industries, and the degree to which they can pass costs on to consumers of their products (o ften other industries). The effect of these characteristics on domestic production hinges on the extent to which domestically produced goods face competition from abroad and consumers’ ability to substitute less carbon-intensive alternatives for a given product.
The scale of the potential impacts of a unilateral, economywide CO 2 pricing policy is unprecedented in the history of environmental regulat ion, as is the range of industries that would be affected. By contrast, the debate leadi ng up to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was informed by extensive analyses of the likely eff ects of a cap-and-trade progr am for sulfur dioxide emissions on a single sector, the electric power industry. These an alyses were gr eatly simplified by the fact that the policy under c onsideration targeted a regulate d industry that faced almost no international competition. A pricing policy for CO 2 emissions would not only have more significant direct impacts on coal and other dom estic energy industries, it could also cause adverse business impacts on energy-intensive, im port-sensitive manufactur ing industries. Since comprehensive information concerning industry- level impacts associated with new carbon mitigation policies is quite limited, debate is often dominated by anecdotal information.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

2 A common methodology for assessing the impact of carbon control policie s is to estimate the long-run cost to consumer welfare after fi rms have adjusted by using new kinds of energyefficient technologies and after new import patterns have been established. In many of these analyses, a mobile factor framework is used in which workers and capital owners do not suffer much (as producers) since they are assumed to be able to shift from the taxed sectors to the untaxed sectors. Such long-run analysis, however, fails to capture the shor t-run costs that most firms will experience. A chemical plant suddenly faced with higher energy costs cannot immediately and without cost convert to more energy-efficient methods. If it leaves its output price unchanged, the higher input costs will lower pr ofits. If it tries to raise prices to cover the higher costs, it will be faced with lower sales. A carbon control policy that does not address these impacts in a fair manner will likely be opposed by many stakeholders. Further, what’s fair can change over time: a policy deemed to be fair for the initial years may become unfair in the
future.
This paper advances the analysis of comp etitiveness issues by providing relatively transparent analyses of the impacts of a unilateral, economywide $10/ton CO 2 pricing policy on a disaggregated set of industrial sectors, taking account of time-re levant changes in adjustment costs. The analysis does not consider the use of gratis allowance allocation, trade-related measures, or other complementary policies designed to reduce the competitiveness impacts. Four
time horizons are considered:

• The very short run, where output prices cannot be changed and profits fall accordingly;

• The short run, where output pr ices can rise to reflect th e higher energy costs, with a corresponding decline in sales as a result of product and/or import substitution;

• The medium run, when in addition to the changes in output prices, the mix of inputs may also change, but capital remains in place, and economywide (“general equilibrium”) effects are considered; and

• The long run, or full general equilibrium anal ysis, when capital ma y be reallocated and replaced with more energy efficient technologies.

Both the first and second time horizons are analyzed in a partial equilibrium framework with fixed input coefficients. The first one, with no changes in output prices, involves no demand adjustments whatsoever. The second time horizon re quires an estimate of the demand elasticities for each industry’s output, that is, how much sales fall when output prices are raised. TheseResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

3 elasticities are estimated by simulating an economywide model under constrained conditions. Such a calculation allows us to capture the effect of customers switching to other products when output prices are raised, includ ing the switch to imported vari eties of the same product.
The third time horizon is analyzed by direct application of a relati vely simple long-run computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. The use of such a model allows us to take into
account the fact that the demand fo r steel depends not only on the price of steel but also on the price of plastics, indeed the price of everything in the econom y. Higher energy prices raise the prices of steel and plastic and directly lowe r the demand for both. In addition, the lower demand for plastic indirectly lowers the chemical indus try’s demand for steel. These general equilibrium effects are not considered in the first two time horizons. At the same time, this third case continues to assume that capital is not mobile but stuck in a given indus try. Therefore, when sales fall due to higher costs bei ng passed on as higher prices, profits will also fall, leading to a lower rate of return to capital.
The fourth time horizon, the full long-run analysis, allows for capital mobility. There are no industry-specific profit effects, but simply th e change in the economyw ide return to labor versus capital. The focus is on the long-run effects of GHG po licies on consumption patterns, that is, households and other components of fi nal demand switching to less energy-intensive products. This switch in final demand change s the structure of production and total energy consumption, but the long-run framework implies that returns to capita l are equalized across
industries. We should note that the “long run” may be define d in a variety of ways. Our definition is the simplest concep t using a one-period model where the supply of capital is given exogenously. A model with intertemporal features that determines savings endogenously will identify an effect not considered here—that is , how the total stock of capital responds to the changes in prices due to a carbon tax.
For all four time horizons analyzed, we use a relatively disaggregated modeling framework, based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) basis. For the two longer-run scenarios we use the two-digit leve l which allows for 21 sectors across the U.S. economy, including 13 manufacturi ng industries. For the first two modeling frameworks
sufficient data are available to subdivide a num ber of the categories into finer three-digit groupings, a total of 52 industrial sectors. Estima tes of carbon intensity are made for the year 2002, the most recent year of the benchmark i nput–output (IO) table, us ing industry-specific information on output, intermediate input, foss il fuel use, and emissions for that year.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

4 The focus is on a sequence of transparent st eps that allows read ers to understand the analysis in a way not conveyed by the typical bl ack box of aggregate or very long-term economic modeling. We estimate the impacts measured in terms of reduced output, profits, employment, and trade effects. Arguably, such analysis is critical to both informing the debate on competitiveness and providing guidance regarding how those concerns might be addressed, recognizing that the nature and magnitude of any new policy may depend critically on the time horizon considered. Even the ranking of industr ies by cost impacts should be useful for the policy challenge of assessing the need for, and na ture of, any special cons iderations that might accompany a broad-based carbon-pricing mechanism.
The next section reviews a number of pr evious studies that have examined competitiveness issues at a detailed, industry-sp ecific level. Section III describes the basic methodology used in our modeling work. Section IV describes the data sources along with the key data gaps at this level of disaggregation. A mo re detailed description of the data is presented in Appendix A. Section V presents the principal results, and Se ction VI compares the results across multiple time horizons along several diffe rent dimensions. Section VII provides crossmodel comparisons, and Section VIII o ffers some overall conclusions.

II. Other Studies on Detailed Industry Impacts
The literature on industry impacts of carbon polic ies has grown considerably over the last several years, including both policy-or iented and more technical studies. 2 The technical studies
build on the extensive work on the effect of environmental regulation of conventional (nonGHG) pollutants on the competitivene ss of the U.S. manufacturing sect or. For example, a recent paper by Levinson and Taylor (2008) examines in detail the effect of the 60 percent decline in conventional pollution from U.S. manufacturi ng during the period 1970–2002 concurrent with the 80 percent increase in real output during th at period. Overall, the authors conclude that technological progress accounts for well over half of the observed pollutio n reductions and that the relocation of polluting activities overseas plays a relatively minor role. At the same time,

2 A recent volume by Houser et al. (2008 ) assesses the economics and trade flow s of key carbon-intensive industries and summarizes a range of policy options under discussion in the U.S. Congress both in terms of their effectiveness in reducing emissions and addressing competitiveness issu es. Overall, they argue that the impacts are relatively modest; those impacts that do exist are concentrated in a small number of industri es, including steel, copper, aluminum, cement, glass, pa per, and basic chemicals.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

5 they find that the role of technology seems to be shrinking, making changes in the composition of U.S. manufacturing relatively more importa nt for the future. Other research, based on the variation in environmental stringency across i ndividual U.S. states, has found larger impacts (Greenstone 2002).

Whether or not U.S. firms will react to the imposition of a carbon price in the same way they have to the regulation of conventional pollution is very much an open question. Arguably, the cost of complying with carbon regulations might be higher than for conventional pollution because of the very limited applicability of end of pipe solutions such as sequestration. Thus, industries which cannot readily switch fuels or alter their production processes may face significantly higher costs. Since there is no actu al experience with carbon prices in the United States, the assessment of impacts is generally based on modeling analyses—themselves derived from historical economic relationships—rather th an on direct empirical observation of changes in industrial activity associated with the im position of carbon or energy prices. The principal exception we are aware of is recent econometri c work by Aldy and Pizer (2008) involving a cross-section time-series analysis of the competitiv eness impacts associated with U.S. electricity prices over a 20-year period. 3 They estimate industry-specific pr ice elasticities and calculate the likely competitiveness impacts of a unila teral U.S. carbon price of $15/ton of CO 2 . The Aldy Pizer results are roughly comparable to our shor t and medium term cases. The remainder of this section reviews recent modeling analyses of carb on price impacts focusing on the four different
time horizons considered.

Very Short–Run Time Horizon
Using IO data from four-digit U.S. manufact uring industries, Morgen stern et al. (2004) developed a simple linear model to assess the very short–run impacts on domestic manufacturing of carbon price policies. Their model, which assu mes that output prices cannot be changed, is based on combustion emissions from all sources, in cluding those associated with the purchase of electricity and other domestically produced inte rmediate inputs. Process emissions associated with cement production and other industrial proce sses are not included. Also ignored are changes in sales and output due to firms passing on the higher carbon costs, a nd general equilibrium

3 Their initial results suggest that the losses in output and employment may be somewhat higher than those reported here, although some of the differences are clearly related to their use of narrower industrial categories. Not surprisingly, the narrowness of the industry categories is a key issue throughout the literature: broad categories show smaller effects; narrow categor ies show larger effects.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

6 effects such as higher natural gas prices due to fuel switching from co al, the latter creating additional competitiveness concerns for industries th at use natural gas. Overall, Morgenstern et al. (2004) find a diverse pattern of impacts acr oss the 361 individual ma nufacturing industries examined, with only a few of them bearing dispr oportionately large burdens. They also find quite different impacts for an economywide versus an electricity-only carbon price policy.
A recent paper by Hourcade et al. (2007) developed a screening model to examine competitiveness impacts on the United Kingdom manufacturing sector of phase III of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS ). Like the earlier U.S. analyses, Hourcade et al. assume that firms are unable to adjust ou tput prices in response to higher carbon costs. Unlike the U.S. papers, however, they include pro cess emissions in the cement and other relevant industries but exclude purchase of intermediate inputs other than elect ricity. Their analysis develops industry-specific information on internat ional trade flows but does not explicitly model the output or profitability of individual industries. Like the U.S. studies, Hourcade et al. find a large divergence of impacts across the individual manufacturing industries.

Short-Run Time Horizon

On the basis of detailed case studies, two recent papers estimate the competitiveness effects of the early phases of the EU-ETS: one by McKinsey & Company and Ecofys (2006; hereafter, McKinsey) for the European Comm ission, and the second by Reinaud (2005) for the International Energy Agency (IEA). These studie s focus on representative subsectors within particular energy-intensive manuf acturing industries and explicitly consider the extent to which free permit allocation under the EU-ETS (based on direct emissions only) could mitigate estimated cost impacts. 4 Both studies start with a calculati on of the cost increases that would arise from a particular CO 2 charge, including emissions-rela ted cost increases from the combustion of fossil energy and from process emi ssions, as well as the indirect costs of higher

4 While a free allocation clearly benefits shareholders, the question of whether a free allocation based on historic emissions would offset the production cost increases that are relevant for competitiveness concerns (in terms of changing prices, production, and employment) remains open. Rules that rescind allocations if a plant closes would encourage facilities to use free allowances to offset costs; rules that allow facility owners to keep free allowances when a plant closes would not.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

7 electricity prices. 5 The indirect costs reflected in interm ediate inputs other than electricity are excluded, as are the general equilibrium ef fects from higher natural gas prices.
The McKinsey study makes explicit assumpti ons about how much of any production cost increase associated with a carbon price will pass through to higher product prices in different manufacturing industries. McKinsey bases these assumptions on the published literature and its own industry expertise. However, McKinsey only goes so far as to calculate net cost impacts: effects on output are not reported. Estimated price impacts are based on the threshold change in revenue needed to keep a facility open, a ssuming no change in demand for the product (or facility output) in response to higher prices. Im portantly, the analysis also assumes that firms will attempt to pass through all cost in creases associated with the c limate policy, regardless of any free allocation. In contrast, the Reinaud analysis calcu lates the net effect on prices and then applies demand elasticities drawn from the literature to estimate changes in output. That is, McKinsey focuses on changes in net costs while the Reinaud study attempts to explicitly trace cost impacts through to effects on output. Thus, Reinaud’s approach most closely resembles
what we label the short-term horizon.
The results from both European studies sugge st that initial cost impacts, before adjustment for free allowance allocation or cost pass-through, are substant ial in some cases and vary widely across industry subsectors. This va riation reflects differen ces in energy intensity and, particularly in the case of cement, differe nces in process emissions. Both studies estimate the largest initial cost impacts in basic oxygen fu rnace (BOF) steel, alumin um, and cement, with relatively smaller impacts in electric arc furnace (EAF) steel.
Assuming that freely allocated allowances ar e incorporated directly into the firms’ production cost accounting, net cost burdens fall significantly if industries are given a free allocation of allowances equivalent to 95 per cent of their direct em issions. According to McKinsey, the net cost burden after free allocatio n for BOF steel and cement, for example, falls by 85–90 percent, an amount that reflects the su bstantial primary fuel consumption and only modest use of electricity that characterizes these industries. In contrast, electricity-intensive

5 Both studies assume the power generation industry passe s on the full opportunity cost of carbon allowances. To calculate costs associated with el ectricity consumption, the McKinsey study assumes 0.41 tons of CO 2 emissions per megawatt-hour; the Reinaud study uses the 2001 average CO 2 intensity of grid-supplied electricity. Neither study considers how facilities might respond to a carbon pri ce by reducing direct emissions and/or electricity consumption, thereby lessening the cost impacts of the carbon policy.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

8 industries with significant indirect emissions from electricity use, like EA F steel, see a smaller decline (roughly 10 percent) in the net cost bur den under a 95 percent free allocation based only
on direct emissions. 6

Medium- and Long-Run Anal yses Based on CGE Analyses
Unlike the partial equilibrium analyses coveri ng the very short and the short run horizons, the medium and long run analyses rely on comput able general equilibrium (CGE) models of the entire economy. At the same time, most of the CGE models are quite aggregate in nature, generally containing five or fewer nonenergy se ctors (Fischer and Morg enstern 2006). We are aware of only two such models used for carbon policy analysis th at include extensive industry detail: the domestic-oriented Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model (IGEM) and the international-oriented Global Trade Analysis Pr oject (GTAP). We report here on recent analyses using these models.

IGEM
IGEM is a dynamic model of the U.S. econom y that describes economic growth due to capital accumulation, technical ch ange, and population growth. Capital accumulation arises from savings of a household modeled wi th “perfect foresight.” The pr oduction or supply side of the model identifies a total of 35 industries, of wh ich 21 are manufacturing and 5 are energy related. Coal, refined oil, gas, and electr icity are separately identified energy inputs. Domestic output is supplemented by imports from the rest of the worl d to form the total supply of each commodity. The key model parameters governing the be havior of producers and consumers are econometrically estimated. In a re cent paper, Jorgenson et al. ( 2007) revised previous analyses by Ho and Jorgenson (1994) and Jorgenson and W ilcoxen (1993) to assess the economic costs of a market-based climate policy. Overall, they find that by 2020 the economic burden of a GHG mitigation policy that uses a revenue-neutral carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to permanently constrain emissions to year 2000 leve ls, while measurable, is relatively small—on the order of 0.5 to 0.7 percent of the gross domestic product ( GDP). Substitutions away from more costly inputs and toward relatively cheapermaterials, labor, and capital, along with priceinduced technical change, help to reduce the adverse impacts.

6 This reflects the EU-ETS design, which does not addre ss cost increases arising from higher electricity prices (where higher electricity prices re flect the indirect emissions asso ciated with power generation).Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

9 With the exception of agriculture, food, a nd related activities, Jorgenson et al.(2007) project that all industries face declines in output volumes. While coal mining experiences the largest impacts on domestic output (about 15 percen t in their central case ), other energy-related industries, including petroleum refi ning, electric utilities, and gas utilities, all experience output declines of 2 to 3 percent. Metal mining, oil and gas extraction, and nonmetallic mineral mining also face significant output declines. In the manufacturing sector, the most heavily impacted industries are primary metals; st one, clay, and glass; fabricated metal products; nonelectrical machinery; motor vehicles; chemicals and allie d products; rubber and plas tic products; furniture and fixtures; and lumber and wood products.

GTAP
The GTAP project consists of a multisector ( up to 52 industries), multiregion database of output and trade flows and a general equilibrium model of the world economy based on this database. Although the models using the GTAP data that we describe he re do not project energy
use into the distant future or allow for t echnological change, they do allow for capital reallocation. As such, the results should be cons idered illustrative of a hybrid of the short-, medium-, and long-term time horizons analyzed here. A recent paper by Fischer and Fox (2007) based on version 6.1 of GTAP (2001) considers how alternative permit allocation mechanisms affect the outcome of carbon po licies. They examine four di fferent allocation mechanisms: auction, grandfathering, output-bas ed allocation tied to emissions , and output-based allocation tied to value added. They report impacts on 18 none nergy sectors as well as 5 energy sectors.
In a policy scenario that reduces emissions by about 14 percent below baseline (roughly keyed to the goals of the proposed Lieberman- Warner legislation), Fischer and Fox (2007) estimate a relatively small reduction in overall output, on the order of 0.34 to 0.51 percent, depending on the particular allocation mechanism. The smallest output declines occur for the output-based allocation tied to emissions. Overal l, output declines consistently across the industries examined, except the food products and service sector s, for all the alternative allocation mechanisms. Coal mining experiences th e largest declines, on th e order of 16 percent. Other energy-related industries, including electricit y, natural gas, and crude oil, also experience significant declines, on the order of 5 percent. Transportation and mining are estimated to decline by 8 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Th e most hard-hit manufacturing industries are chemicals and iron and steel, at about one percen t each. All other manufactur ing industries report output declines that are generally 0.5 percent or less. Interestingly, th e Fischer and Fox (2007) analysis reports total em issions leakage of about 12 to 15 percen t of the overall reduction in U.S.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

10 emissions. Although not explicitly reported in th eir paper, this implies dramatically higher industry-specific leakage rates for some industries. For example, the leak age rate for the energy
intensive industries is on the order of 40-45 percent. 7
Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) developed anothe r model based on the GTAP database that covers 21 sectors and 24 regions of the world. It considers how carbon taxe s interact with trade liberalization and revenue recycling. Trade libe ralization raises world GDP slightly but also raises world carbon emissions, and the authors car ry out a simulation where the tariff cuts are accompanied by carbon taxes that keep CO 2 emissions unchanged. They find that a system of carbon taxes, trade liberalization, and revenue recycling reduces the gains from trade liberalization quite modestly. Adkins and Ga rbaccio also consider a case where Annex I countries impose a carbon tax to reduce their CO 2 emissions by 5 percent and non-Annex I countries do not have a carbon constraint. They find that this leads to a net reduction in global
CO 2 emissions of 2 percent, reflec ting a leakage rate of 35 percent. 8

III. Methodology to Analyze Different Time Horizons
As noted, we consider four time horizons for the analysis of the impact of carbon control policies, using an IO framework for all cases. This section describes the framework in some detail to illuminate the assumptions and simplif ications made. Readers more interested in the results may skip to Section V.
We adopt fairly standard IO conventions fo r the notation in the following equations [see, for example, Miller and Blair (1985)]. In order to have a full accounting of all carbon sources and users we construct a complete set of accounts for all n industries and final demands (consumption, government, and exports).

Let X j p denote the price of industry j output to buyers, and L j p and K j p denote the price
of labor and capital inpu ts. The value of industry j ’s output at buyers' prices is equal to the value of inputs plus taxes on production:

(1) 1, 2... X Q LK j j i ij j j j j j i p X p u p L p K tax j n = + ++ =



## ∑

7 Personal communication with the authors.

8 Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) Table 12 and personal communication with the authors.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

11 where j X is the quantity of output and ij u is the intermediate input of commodity i into sector j purchased at prices Q i p

. j L and j K are the labor and capital inputs. We denote the values of output and input by a v superscript: v X j jj X p X = and v Q ij i ij u pu =

. Both the detailed industry accounts and IO ta bles distinguish between industries and commodities; they are classified by using the same names and reference numbers. 9 The electricity commodity, for example, is produ ced by the electric power generation industry, federal electric utilities, and state and local (S&L) government el ectric utilities. Each industry uses various intermediate commodity inputs, u ij . A matrix whose j th column is the vector of commodities used by sector j is the "Use” matrix. In value terms this is:

(2) [ ] v v ij u = U

The vector of industry output is denoted by 1 ( ,... )'

n X X X =

.
For calculations of emissions, we need to express emissions in terms of tons of CO 2 emitted per dollar of output. The "Activity" matrix, B, gives the amount of input i required for one unit of output j , and is simply the Use matrix divided by output:

(3) 1 ; [ ] [ ( )] v ij v v ij ij v j u b b diag X X − = == B U

The symbol diag(x) denotes the matrix where the diagonal consists of the elements of the

x

vector and zeros in the off- diagonal. The corresponding use of labor and capital per unit output
are denoted as:

(4) ; j j L K j j j j L K b b X X = =

9 For example, the accommodation i ndustry produces an "accommodation" commodity and a “food service” commodity. On the other side, each commodity may be pro duced by several industries; for example, the “food service” commodity is produced by the accommodation industry an d the food service industry.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

12 In our analysis of the very short run we assu me that the input mix ca nnot be changed, that is, the activity matrix B is not affected by carbon control policies.

Total final demand, E i , is the demand for domestic commodity i by the final users— consumption, investment, government, and ne t exports. This corresponds to the familiar expression for GDP: GDP = C + I + G + X – M. Thus, for commodity i :

(5) i i i i i i i e g v c E

− + + + = ; 1 ( ,... )'

n E EE =

Let i Q denote the supply of domestic commodity i. The supply–demand balance in quantity terms is written as:

(6) 

# ∑
= + = j i ij i m i E u Q
,.... 2

, 1 ; [ ] i Q Q =

In vector form this becomes:

(6a) QU E X E ι = += + B

where ι is a vector of ones. The correspondi ng equation in value terms is simply vvv QU E ι = +

. Since each commodity may be produced by a fe w industries, we use the “Make” or “Supply”
matrix:

(7) [ ] v v ji V = V

where v ji V gives the value of commodity i produced by industry j . The vector of industry output
is the row sum of the Supply matrix, v v X ι = V ; the vector of commodity output is the column sum, ' v v Q ι = V . Let the share of commodity i produced by industry j be denoted by d ji . Then the relation between industry output an d commodity supply is given by:

(8) v v X Q = D ; 1 [ ] [ ( )] v v ji d diag Q

− = = D VResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

13 We also use the industry proportion matrix , C, which gives the share of industry j ’s output going to commodity i :

(9) v v Q X = C ; 1 [ ] '[ ( )] v v ji c diag X

− = = C V

By putting (3) and (8) into (6), we obtain the following well-known relationship between final demand and domestic output [s ee, e.g., Miller and Blair (1985)]:

(10) 1 ( ) v v Q E − = − I BD

where I is the identity matrix. 1 ( )
−

− I BD is known as the Leontief inverse, or the “commodity total requirements matrix.” It tells us that to produce a vector E of final demand commodities, the economy must produce a vector Q of gross output of commodities.
In particular, this formulation expresses the additional outputs required to produce an extra unit of good i for final users. For example, if we want to produce one more dollar’s worth of motor vehicles, the economy mu st produce additional steel, gl ass, electricity, and other necessary materials that the motor vehicle indus try buys as inputs. However, steel production needs motor vehicles, electricity, coal, etc., and electricity needs steel, coal, etc. The Leontief inverse gives us the grand total of extra electricity, coal, and so on, that is required for the economy to produce one more do llar of motor vehicles. The commodity total requirements vector (i.e., the vector of additi onal output needed for one unit of i ) is:

(11) 1 ( ) i i Q − Δ =− I Β D i

where i i is a vector with a one in the i th element and zeros everywhere else. Writing out the components of this vector explicitly gives us:Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

14 (12) i farm

i i oil
i
gas Q Q Q Q ⎡ ⎤

Δ ⎢ ⎥

Δ ⎢ ⎥ Δ = ⎢ ⎥ Δ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ #

With this formulation, we can estimate the total additional CO 2 emissions due to one more unit of good i since the vector i Q Δ gives us the additional coal , crude oil, and gas used.

Let f θ be the CO 2 content per unit of fuel f , where the units are the base year dollars of
fuel f . For example, 106923 coal θ = metric tons of CO 2 per million dollars of coal in 2002. This is derived from the energy content pe r unit fuel (e.g., BTUs per ton of coal), the carbon content per BTU, and the average price per un it fuel (dollars per ton). If there were no noncombustion uses of fuels, then the direct and indirect emissions due to producing one unit of good i may be derived simply by multiplying the primary energy elements in i Q Δ by their respective carbon
content coefficients. Let i C Δ denote the total carbon emissions caused by producing one unit of

i :

(13)

' i ii i coal coal oil oil gas gas

i CQ Q Q
Q θ θθ

θ Δ= Δ + Δ + Δ

= Δ
where ' (0,.., , ,..0) coal oil θ θ θ = is the vector of carbon coeffici ents with nonzero entries only for the primary fuels. Although the i Q Δ vector also gives us the additional electricity and additional refined petroleum products used, we do not incl ude them in the calculation since these are secondary products. It is the production, not the use, of electricity that generates CO 2 , and that is captured by the coal, oil, and gas elements. Sim ilarly, gasoline, kerosene, and so forth are captured at the crude oil stage.
However, oil and gas are used as feedstoc k in the production of chemicals and other noncombusted products, that is, their carbon is not re leased in the typical fashion. If the carbon policy exempts such nonfuel use th en the formulas should reflect that. In this case we estimate carbon emissions from the combustion of refined pe troleum products and gas utilities instead of just the primary commodities from coal, oil mi ning, and gas mining. We begin with expressing
total national emissions as the sum over the industries and final demand use of fuel f , and then
sum over all fuels:Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

15 (14) ( ) f fj fj f f j C uE θ φ = +



# ∑ ∑

The combustion use of fuel f in industry j is the quantity used ( u fj ) multiplied by a combustion ratio, f j φ . National emissions also include t hose from households and government
represented in the final demand vector E . In matrix notation, this is:

(15) '[( ) ] '[ [ ( )] ] '[ ] '[ ] C iE diag X E

X E

Q E θ φ θφ ι θ φ θ φ = +

= +

= +

= + U
B
B
BD i

i

i

i

where u φ

i is the Hadamard product and ι is a vector of ones. The vect or of the change in direct

and indirect CO 2 emissions due to one more unit of final demand is obtained by substituting in (11):

(16) '
1
1 ' '[ ( ) ] C
C θ φ

− Δ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ Δ= = − + ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ BD I BD I # i

That is, the change in emissions due to one more unit of commodity i used by final
demand is:
(17) [ ( )] i i f fk fk kj j i fk j C b dQ θ φ θ Δ= Δ + 

# ∑∑ ∑

We should emphasize the difference between (13) and (17), which includes the combustion ratio term. The refining sector has the smallest combustion ratio where the major part of crude input is transformed to refine d products, and it is: φ (oil mining, refining) = 0.067

This is very different from 1.0. Thus, (17) generates a very different estimate of the carbon intensity for some products. The constructi on of the combustion ratios is described in Appendix A.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

16 Given the additional carbon embodied in one unit of commodity i , we may assume that a CO 2 tax at rate $ C t /ton will result in th e cost of producing i rising by C i t C

Δ . Denote this by:

(18) Q C i i p t C Δ =Δ

For nonfuel commodities, say for i = aluminum, then Q aluminum p Δ is the higher cost due to paying more for directly purchased oil and gas as well as for electricity that is generated with now more-expensive fossil inputs. For the fossil fuel commodities, say i = coal, the Q coal p Δ expression represents the higher cost of producing coal and the carbon tax on coal.
This expression for the change in input prices is the starting point to estimate the cost of carbon mitigation policies from the twin perspectives of the initial industrial purchaser and the
final end user. The additional cost to final users is the change in price multiplied by the quantity purchased of each commodity. The tota l cost to all final users of a $ C t carbon tax (before any changes in behavior) is the sum over all m commodities:

(19)

1 m FD Q i i i COST p E

= Δ =Δ 

# ∑

The change in costs of industry j is the change in the pri ces of inputs multiplied by the quantity of inputs that are assumed to be unchanged in the very short–run ( VS ) case. The total
increase in current co sts per dollar of output j is:

(20) VS Q j i ij ij i COST p B φ Δ =Δ 

# ∑

We allow for the option that the carbon ta x only applies to the combusted portion by multiplying the input matrix B by the combustion ratio φ

. We also want to separate out the total eff ect into the contribution of primary fuels, electricity, and all other intermed iate inputs. To do this we co mpute the carbon contributions of the primary fuels and electricity from the en ergy consumption data gi ven in Table A2 of Appendix A. That is, we have, D C j θ = CO 2 per dollar of industry ou tput due to the directResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

17 combustion ( DC ) of fossil fuels, and EL j θ = CO 2 per dollar due to electricity ( EL ) consumption.

The total effect is thus the sum of the direct combustion, electricity, and indirect intermediate input ( IN ) contributions:

(20a) VS DC EL IN jj jj COST COST COST COST Δ =Δ +Δ +Δ

D C C DC j j COST t θ Δ =

EL C EL j j COST t θ Δ =

We are interested in the total effect on an industry and need to distinguish between quantities and values, sale s revenues and profits. Th e gross sales revenue is X j j P X , and net sales revenue is the gross minus “taxes on producti on” (sales tax). Deno ting the tax rate by X j t , net sales revenue for industry j is:

(21) sales revenue = 1 X j j XO j j X j P X P X t = +

where XO j P denotes the revenue received per unit of out put by the producer, that is, the “seller’s price.” Let j π denote the gross return to capital, that is, net sales revenue minus intermediate
input costs and labor costs of industry j :

(22) XO Q L j j j i ij j j j i p X pBX pL π =− − 

# ∑

Very Short–Run Horizon Where Quantities Cannot Be Changed
In the very short–run scenario we calculate the effect of the carbon charge on profits for j as if customers do not buy less due to higher pric es, that is, there are no changes in the quantity of output or inputs. This is best regarded as a very short–r un, partial equilibrium view of the effects. Here we only focus on industry j and how the higher input prices of all non- j commodities affect its profits. We also regard labor prices to be unchanged in this very short–run horizon case. The change in gross profit to the producer is:Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

18 (23) VS XO Q L j j j i ij ij j j j i Q i ij ij j i

IM j j p X pB X pL

pB X

COST X π φ

φ Δ =Δ − Δ −Δ

=− Δ

= −Δ 

# ∑ ∑

That is, under the assumption that quantities are unchanged and the out put price is fixed, the change in profits is simply the per dollar ch ange in cost given in (20) multiplied by total output quantity. This definition of changes in very short–run profits is somewhat inconsistent since we consider how the carbon ta x results in higher input prices, Q i p , while at the same time assuming that output prices, XO j p , are unchanged for all i ndustries. We define it in this manner to
reflect the arguments often made by industry representatives: “our costs will rise due to a carbon fee and we will not be able to raise prices or change input quantities.” This setup also has the advantage of being a simple, transparent repres entation of the maximum impact on profits from the higher costs. This is a simple partial equilibrium representati on, ignoring the fact that input commodity i is some other industry’s output.
The percentage change in very short–run pr ofits is simply the weighted share of the percentage change in input prices:

(24) Q VS VS Q i ij ij j j j j ij ij i i Q i j j j i Kj dp B X d COST X dp

p φ π φ α

π ππ α − −Δ

= = =− 

# ∑ ∑

where the α s denote the cost shares:

(25) Q i ij ij XO j j p u
p X α = i=1,2,...m

K j j Kj XO j j p K

p X α =Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

19 Short-Run Horizon with Higher Output Price and Lower Sales

In this next case we consider the situation where the producers raise their output prices to cover the higher costs and cust omers react by switching to subs titute goods or substitute suppliers such as imports. Let the demand elasticity for output j be:

(26) X j j j X j j p dX

X dp η =

That is, for each percentage point increase in price, the producer j will make and sell j η percent less. That is, the percent change in sales and output due to an incr ease in price to cover the higher cost VS j COST Δ is:

(27) X j j VS j jj X j j dX dp COST X p η η = =Δ

As in the first case, we assume that labor prices are unchanged. However, we allow a certain level of adjustment for inputs—all input quantities other th an capital input may change in proportion to the reduction in output, but not due to price-induced f actor substitution. Let j dX
denote the change in the quantity of output pr oduced. The change in intermediate input i and labor use are given by:

(27a) X j ij ij j ij j j X j dp dU B dX B X p η = =

X j L L j j j jj j X j dp dL b dX b X p η = =

The no-substitution assumption means that the amount of input per unit output is fixed, that is, 0 ij dB = . This setup is also not guaranteed to be internally consistent, since the total change in purchases calculated from (27) is independent of the change given by j η , which is

estimated from a model simulation where substitu tion is allowed. That is, while we allow the
customers of j to respond to higher prices, producers of j are still unable to adjust the input mix by substituting cheaper inputs for the more expens ive carbon-intensive ones . The customers are, however, simply other producers. We frame the shor t-run effect in this manner to show a partial equilibrium effect in the simplest way possibl e. This framework addresses the issue of passthrough, that is, how much producer s can pass on their higher costs in the short run. It allows aResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

20 generous estimate of the damage to sales due to price changes and, co rrespondingly, a generous estimate of the impact on profits.
In this short-run case we assume that produ cers raise the output pri ce by the amount of the
increase in unit cost due to the carbon tax:
(28) XO VS j j dp COST = Δ

The price to buyers is changed by this highe r seller’s price plus the new carbon tax:

(29) (1 )
(1 ) X XO X C jj j j

XO X C j jj p p tt

p t θ

τ = ++

= ++ j = 1,...52

/ C C XO j jj t p τ θ = ; j = coal, crude oil, gas, refined petroleum, gas utilities

where C j τ is the carbon tax rate. The carbon tax is positive only for the energy industries j = coal,
oil mining, gas mining, gas utilities, and re fined petroleum. The change in price is:

(30) X XO C jj j dp dp t θ = +

And in percentage terms:

(31) X XO j j C j X XO j j dp dp

p p τ = +

The change in profits in this short-run ( SR ) case is the change in revenues less the change in costs, both of which are split in to price change and quantity change:Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

21 (32) SR XO XO Q Q L L j j j j j i ij j i ij j j j j j i i

XO X j jj j XO X Q Q j j j i ij j i ij j j X X i i j j

X j L L jj j j X j d dp X p dX dp B X p B dX dp L p dL

X p dp dp X dp dp B X p B X p p dp pb X p π

η η

η = + − − −−

=+ − −

− 

# ∑ ∑

∑ ∑

Recall that the value share of prof its in sales revenue is denoted by K j α , and the value share of labor and intermediate inputs are Lj α and ij α , respectively. Substituting (30) into (31),
the percentage change in gro ss profits may be expressed as:

(33) () ()

( )

1 ( ) [ ]( SR XO XO XO j j j jj j j j j XO C Q Q C j j i ij i ij j j SR XO XO i i jj j j jj j

XO j j LL C jj j j XO j j

XO XO XO Q j j j ij ij Lj j C i j jj XO XO Q XO i i Kj Kj Kj Kj Kj j ji j d X X p dp X X dp dp dp B p B p p X dp p b p dp dp dp dp

ppp p π η τ η τ ππ π π π

η τ π

η α αα τ ηη αα α α α = + +− − +

− +

= + +− − − 

## ∑ ∑

∑ ∑ )

1 [1 (1 )] (1 )

1 C j

XO C Q j j j ij i j ij Lj ij Lj XO Q i ii Kj Kj Kj j i

XO Q j j Kj ij C i j j XO Q i Kj Kj j i dp dp

p p dp dp

p p τ

ητ α η αα αα αα α

ηα α η τ α α +

= + − − + − −−

+ = +− 

## ∑ ∑∑

∑

Compared to the change for the very short– run horizon case give n in (24), the above expression has an additional term for the effect of higher output prices on quantities of input and output. For the fossil fuel industrie s, there is also another term, C j j η τ , for the direct effect of
carbon taxes on the quantities of outputs and inputs in these sectors. That is, the customers of fossil fuel industries not only face more costly fu els due to the higher costs of producing fuels,
but also the carbon tax on the fuels.

Medium-Term Horizon When Input Mix May Be Changed
Beyond the short run we would expect firms to adapt their production processes to the higher prices of fossil fuels. There may be fu el switching toward lowe r-carbon fuels, or using less energy-intensive intermediate inputs, or substi tuting labor for energy. In this scenario, whichResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

22 we refer to as the medium run, we allow these changes but assume that capital stocks are not changed. We estimate the effects of these change s in variable input use by using a three-region general equilibrium model develope d by Adkins and Garbaccio (2007).

Long-Run Horizon When Capital May Be Reallocated
Over time we may see more changes in produc tion technology than changes in the mix of intermediate inputs, for example, the use of more capital-intensi ve, fuel-efficient technologies. Unlike the medium-term horizon case, where we hold the capital stocks in each sector fixed at the base case, in this long-run horizon we allow all factors to be mobile.

IV. Implementation: Data Cons truction and Simulation Model

Data

To obtain accurate estimates of th e industry-specific burdens of a CO 2 pricing policy, it is essential to calculate the carbon usage of each in dustry, including both direct combustion and the purchase of electricity and othe r intermediate inputs. Thus, two types of information are required: IO data on the interi ndustry flows and outputs measured in value terms; and industryspecific estimates of the physical quantities of the different fuels consumed. Unfortunately, the available value and energy data are not designed to complement each other. While the industry
economic data are collected in terms of the NAI CS, only the energy data for manufacturing are collected on the NAICS basis. Energy data for transportation and services are collected on an end-use basis. Accordingly, a key challenge is to develop a consistent set of fuel use estimates across all sectors. We briefly describe here how the energy and emissions estimates by industry are assembled. Details of the calculations are presented in Appendix A.

The 2002 benchmark IO table is the most recent version produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce, providi ng the interindustry flows for 426 sectors, plus information on consumption, government, exports, and imports . Development of the industry-specific CO 2 use involves linking this highly disagg regated value information to the more aggregated fuel data. This is accomplished by aggregating the former to match the categorization scheme of the latter. At the same time, the list of 426 sectors is not sufficiently detailed for the purpose of identifying precisely the use of coal, oil, and natural gas. Thus, we split oil and gas extraction into oil mining and gas mining, and petroleum refineries into natural gas liquids ( NGL) refining and other petroleum refining, and government enterprise s into government electr ic utilities and other government enterprises. We had hoped to explic itly identify a ll the high energy–cost industriesResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

23 in the set of IO industries; how ever, the energy data available re stricted us to a smaller group.
The final list of 52 industries co nsists of (a) six-digit NAICS industries that have high energy costs and have the energy quantity data availabl e; (b) the energy-supplying industries with coal, oil, and gas separated; and (c) the remaining industries aggregated to the three- or four-digit
level. The identified industries are displayed in Table 1.
The consumption of energy for the manufact uring industries is taken from the 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). This data set provides information for a detailed group of industries on combustion and n onfuel use of various en ergy inputs, including residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, natural gas, LPG, coal, coke, and electricity. Unfortunately, for confidentiality reasons, the data for a number of industries are suppressed and we have to make alternative estimates as explained in Appe ndix A. Fossil fuel consumption for the electric utility industry is from the Annual Energy Revi ew (AER 2006). Energy us e for agriculture is provided by the Economic Research Service (ERS ) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Energy use for the other industri es is inferred from the value data.
The methodology assumes that all buyers pay th e same price for a ton of coal, a kilowatthour of electricity, or a unit of any other commod ity. However, as shown in Tables A3a and A3b (Appendix A), there are significant differences between the MECS and the industry-specific fuel quantities implied by the IO value data. Thus, we use the MECS, AER and ERS data to develop estimates of the quantities of the different fu els used by the reporting sectors. For other industries, the quantities of the different fuel s are inferred, based on a residuals calculation constrained by national quantities of the fuels. The results of our calculations of energy use by the 52 industries are given in Tables A4–A9.
Given the energy input quantities, we estimat e the direct carbon emissions by using the carbon coefficients, f θ . Indirect carbon emissi ons for electricity cons umption are based on the
carbon embodied in the average k ilowatt-hour. The carbon emissions per unit of industry output are given in Table A10, and the direct and in direct emissions are displayed in Table A11.

Multisector General Equilibrium Model
Key to the analysis are our estimates of the elasticity of demand for industry output, η

. This is the effect of a hi gher industry output price on cust omers’ demand for alternative commodities or imports. Since we are not aware of any comprehensive and consistent estimate of such elasticities for all industries, we estim ate them from a multisec tor model of the U.S.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

24 economy. Thus, we derive the demand elastic ity for each industry from a common (and consistent) framework.
To develop these elasticity estimates we tu rn to the model described in Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) and Adkins (2006). This model id entifies 21 industries, including 5 energy industries—coal, oil, gas, petroleum products, an d electricity. The production functions used are constant elasticity of substitution (CES), where cap ital and labor form a “value-added” aggregate input, and there is substitution between value-added inputs and the energy bundle (see Appendix B). To estimate the output el asticity for industry j
, j η , we simulate the model by putting a
small tax on the output of j and recording the effect of X j . This is the general equilibrium effect of the tax, allowing all intermediate and fina l demand users to substi tute with alternative
commodities. The estimated demand elasticities are then applied to all the subindustries in our list of 52 industries. The elasticity estimated fo r, say, chemicals, using the Adkins–Garbaccio model is applied to all six subi ndustries in the chemicals group. An exception to this is the petroleum refining industry. Here we impose a short-run elasticity of demand that is smaller than that generated by simulating the CGE model. We did this becau se we believe the short-run response is significantly smaller than the l ong-run response to gaso line price changes.
For the medium- and long-run scenarios, we simulate a carbon tax and use the full
Adkins–Garbaccio model to estimate the effects on the outputs and inputs of each industry, allowing for a full set of substitutions. The quantity of labor demanded, which forms the basis of our estimates of job losses, is one of the key factor inputs.
The regions identified in the model are the Unit ed States, the rest of Annex I, and the rest
of the world. 10 The model also calculat es the effects of the CO 2 tax on industry-specific exports and imports, where the tax is defined as a levy on both domestic fuel producers and importers. The model simulations presented below do not include a border adjustme nt or “carbon content tax” on imported steel or other energy-intensive manufactures.

10 Annex I refers to those countries that have explicit CO 2 targets under the Kyoto Protocol.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

25 V. Industry Patterns of Ou tput, Energy Use, Carbon Intensity, and Imports

Energy Consumption Patterns and Carbon Intensity
We first describe the energy consumption pa tterns and carbon content of the 52 industries considered in the short-run analyses. Tabl e 1 presents the summary energy consumption information for these industries—energy costs as a share of total costs are given for electricity, fossil fuel (combusted portion only), and tota l energy, including noncombustion use of fossil
fuels. The term “total costs” is defined as the total value of a ll inputs for industry j given in the j th column of the “Use” table which, as shown in (1), is also equal to the value of industry
output.
As shown, the relative importance of energy, including feedstocks, as a contributor to total costs varies quite widely across the different manufacturi ng industries, ranging from more than 60 percent in the petroleum industry to less than 1 percent in miscellaneous manufacturing, motor vehicles, and other transportation equipmen t. Outside of manufact uring a similarly wide range exists, from a high of about 42 percent in gas utilities to 0.2 percent in finance and insurance. Even when energy costs are restricted to the combusted portion, the cost share ranges from 15 percent in cement to 0.9 percent in tr ansportation equipment. Of the 33 manufacturing
industries identified here , 15 of them have energy costs exc eeding 6 percent of total costs.
Within the manufacturing sector, the contribut ors to energy costs also vary greatly. For many industries, including petrol eum refining, petrochemical manuf acturing, other basic organic chemical manufacturing, and ferti lizer manufacturing, more than 70 percent of the energy costs
are associated with direct fuel combustion. For others, such as other ba sic inorganic chemical manufacturing, alumina refining and primary al uminum production, and ferrous metal foundries, electricity accounts for more than 70 percent of total energy costs.
Outside of manufacturing, electricity generatio n (private and government utilities) clearly has the highest energy cost share at 13 percent, followed by air transportation services with 9 percent and farms with 6 percent.
Table 2 presents the energy consumption data for the 52 industries in physical quantity terms: tons of coal, barrels of o il, cubic feet of natura l gas, and kilowatt-hours of electricity. It also presents the value of i ndustry output and the primary CO 2 content per dollar of output, that is, the primary CO 2 intensity. Primary CO 2 includes only the carbon in the fossil fuel combusted and in the electricity used: CO 2 embodied in intermediate inputs and biomass is excluded. AsResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

26 explained in Appendix A, we defi ne industry output as the value contained in the benchmark IO table, less the intraindustry tr ansactions given in the di agonal of the IO matrix.
Ranked by the value of output, the bigge st manufacturing industries are food manufacturing, other chemicals and plastics, and computer and electrical equipment. These are about 50 times larger than small, energy-intensive industrie s such as fertilizer, glass, and cement. Within manufacturing, the biggest users of coal are iron and steel, and paper mills; the biggest user of petroleum products is pe trochemical manufacturing; and th e biggest users of natural gas are food manufacturing, refining, and other basic organic chemical s. Other chemicals and plastic is the biggest user of electricit y, followed by food manufacturing.
Industry-specific estimates of primary CO 2 intensity are displayed in the last column of Table 2. Clearly, electr icity has the highest CO 2 intensity among the 52 industries. Within manufacturing, cement manufacturing ha s the highest at 5,100 tons of CO 2 per million dollars of output, followed by petrochemical manufacturi ng with 4,100 tons and alumina refining and primary aluminum with 2,700 tons of CO 2 per million dollars of output. At the other extreme, the machinery, electrical machinery, and transpor tation equipment industries have carbon content
that is less than 120 tons of CO 2 per million dollars of output.

Import Exposure
While the vulnerability to import competition is not necessarily related to the average level of import penetration, a high import share does indicate greater competition for domestic producers. The last column of Table 1 gives the import share of total U.S. consumption by value. The contribution of imports to total supply of manufactures in the U.S. market also varies greatly, ranging from 73 percen t for apparel and 50 percent for computer and electrical equipment on the high end to zero for nonferrous metal f oundries. In the results presented in the next section, the vulnera bility to imports or international leakage associated with a unilateral
increase in the domestic CO 2 price depends on the import substitution elasticity, as embodied in the Adkins–Garbaccio model, and the import share.

VI. Effects of a Carbon Tax o ver Different Time Horizons
This section presents the results of our f our different modeling frameworks. The most comprehensive results are available for industr ial output, while industry-specific estimates for profits, employment, and trade effects are pres ented for some but not all of the modeling horizons. To illustrate the effects of a carbon poli cy, cap-and-trade, or carbon taxes, we simulateResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

27 the effects of an economywide carbon tax ( C t ) of $10/ton CO 2 (2005$). This tax is first converted to 2002 levels to match our base year data. In the first two time horizons, the very short run and the short run, we compute the effects on costs by usi ng equations (20) and (20a) for
each of the 52 industries.

Effects on Costs and Output —Very Short–Run Horizon

The estimates of VS j COST Δ (the percent change in unit costs) are displayed in the first
column of Table 3, while the remaining columns display the direct combustion, electricity, and other intermediate input components: D C j COST Δ

, EL j COST Δ , and IN j COST Δ . Recall that in this
very short–run scenario, firms are regarded as be ing unable to raise prices , adjust output, change input mix, or adopt new tec hnologies. Since the full costs of the carbon charge would be reflected in reduced profits, this can be considered a worst-case assessment.
The most highly affected sector is electricity generation, wh ere costs rise by 8.3 percent. Of the 33 manufacturing industries, two (pet rochemical manufacturing and cement) are estimated to face increases in production costs (reduc tions in profits) of 4 percent or more. Three more manufacturing industries face cost incr eases exceeding 2 percent—lime and gypsum, iron and steel mills, and alumina refining. An additional 14 manufacturing industries and one nonmanufacturing industry (air tran sportation) face productio n cost increases of 1 to 2 percent. The machinery, transportation equipment, and appa rel industries have the lowest cost increases at less than half a percent. We should emphasize that these are the effect s of a $10/ton tax. If they are scaled up proportiona tely to, say, $50/ton of CO 2 , the costs for iron and steel mills and alumina refining will also rise by a factor of five to more than 11 percent.
Given the mix of energy inputs used in U.S. industry, it is not surprising that the
contributions of direct combustion, electricity, and other intermediate inputs vary considerably across sectors. The most highly affected manufac turing sector, cement, uses large amounts of fossil fuel and electricity. It is also responsible for significant carbon emitted in the production of key intermediate inputs. Petrochemical manufactu ring costs rise by 3.4 pe rcent due to direct combustion but only by 0.4 percent each due to elec tricity and intermediate inputs. Of the 2.6 percent increase in costs for alumina refining, 1.8 percentage points—about 70 percent—is due to electricity use. Electricity is a similarly big contributor for other basi c inorganic chemicals and
mineral wool.
Intermediate inputs other than electricity consti tute the biggest share in only a few of the high carbon–input industries—plastic material (0.7 out of 1.4 per cent), artificial and syntheticResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

28 fibers (0.8 out of 1.6 percent), and other nonmet allic mineral products (0.6 out of 1.0 percent).
For the low CO 2 –content industries such as machinery and transportation equipment, other intermediate inputs are the major contri butors to the incr eased costs of a CO 2 charge. We should note again here that process emissions have not b een included in our analyses. If included they would have changed the picture considerably for some sectors, for example, for the nonmetallic mineral products group. We should also note th at pulp mills represent a special case since biomass is a major energy input, although it is ignored in our analysis here. Clearly, the treatment of biomass as an energy source woul d have to be specified under any new policy.
For the nonmanufacturing group, th e cost increases for electric utilities and transportation are due mostly to the fossil fuel input. In cont rast, for the other nonmanufacturing sectors, the
CO 2 embodied in intermediate inputs is the big source of the burden.

Effects on Costs, Profits, and Output—Short Run versus the Very Short Run
In the short-run horizon we assume that produc ers raise prices to cover the higher unit costs. Thus, the change in unit costs is the same as that estimated in the very short–run scenario. Unlike the very short–run case, however, where sale s and output are fixed, in this scenario the higher prices lead to a fall in sales and output as customers switch to alternative goods or imports. As described previously, to determine the sales response we estimated the elasticity of demand for each industry using the 21-sector, three-region world model. Multiplying the elasticities by the percen t change in costs due to a $10/ton ca rbon tax gives our estimate of the
decline in sales and ou tput (equation 27), as re ported in Table 4.
The reduction in output is large where there is either a large cost change or a highly elastic demand response. Among the manufacturing i ndustries, the biggest fa ll in output is in petrochemical manufacturing (–7. 7 percent), since it has both a large 4.2 percent increase in costs from a $10/ton tax and a large demand elas ticity. This is followed by cement with a 4.1 percent decline in output due to the 5.0 percen t increase in costs. With in the chemicals group, other basic organic chemicals, plastic materials, and fertilizer are all estimated to experience output declines exceeding 3.5 percent due to cost increases of almost 2 percent and a relatively high demand elasticity.
Among the nonmanufacturing industries, the fuel-producing industries subject to the carbon tax see the biggest increase in price (t o the buyer, not the producer) and the biggest declines in sales. Coal mining, oil mining, a nd gas utilities experience output declines exceedingResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

29 5 percent. Electric utilities see the biggest increa se in costs and a big reduction in output (1.4 percent), followed by the tr ansportation industries.
A useful set of comparisons can be made from examining the impact of a CO 2 charge on the profits of different industrie s. Table 5 displays the percentage change in prof its in both the very short–run and the short-run models derived from (24) and (33). Recall from Section III that we define profits as the gross re turn to capital, that is, sales re venue less intermediate and labor costs. Expressed in this way, in the very shor t–run two industries, other basic organic chemicals and basic inorganic chemicals, face a fall in prof its of more than 8 percent from this modest carbon tax. Artificial and synthetic fiber manufacturing, and fertiliz er also see relatively large reductions in profits, exceeding 4 percent.
However, as firms attempt to pass along the hi gher costs, even with some reduction in sales, a large portion of these losses are recouped for those indus tries facing inelastic demands, that is, for those most able to pass through th e higher costs. For example, the 9.4 percent reduction in profit in other basic inorganic chemical s in the very short run is reduced to a loss of 0.2 percent in the short run. That is, about 98 percent of the increased costs may be recouped
once we relax the constraint on co st passthrough. Similar patterns ar e seen in most of the other manufacturing industries. Those least able to pass on the higher costs are cement (short run loss of 0.4 percent compared to very short–run loss of 1.5 percent) and computer and electrical equipment (0.10 percent versus 0.22 percent).

The situation in the fossil fuel producing industries, however, is quite different. In these industries the very short–run a ssumption of no change in output quantities means a smaller loss compared to the short-run assumption, when the consumers of fossil fuels react to the carbon tax by buying less fuel. In the case of coal mining, in the very short–run horizon we see a 0.30 percent fall in profits, but when we account for the much lower use of coal after prices rise, the fall in profits is 1.1 percent. Similarly, oil mi ning experiences a fall in profits of 0.51 percent when we account for the higher oil prices to cons umers compared to the very short–run decline of 0.11 percent.
The other nonmanufacturing industries experi ence effects similar to those in the manufacturing group. For example, truck transpor tation experiences a very short-run loss of 0.56 percent compared to a shor t-run loss of 0.07 percent.

It is clear from these results that the exte nt of the variation in both output and profit impacts is quite sensitive to the breadth of the industrial categories considered. Within the chemicals group (NAICS 325) the ve ry short–run change in profits ranges from 0.3 percent inResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

30 other chemicals and plastics to 9.4 percent in other basic inorganic chemicals, more than an order of magnitude difference. If we had averaged over the whole group, the low estimate for other chemicals and plastics would have dominated the results (see the output values in Table 2.) In earlier work, Morgenstern et al. (2004) found that subindustry impacts estim ated at a four-digit classification scheme (based on the Standard In dustrial Classification) can be an order of magnitude larger those estimated at the two-digit cl assification level. This is consistent with the analysis presented here that also includes some six-digit industries. As discussed in Appendix A, here our choice of aggregation leve l is dictated by the availability of consistent information to serve as inputs to the relevant models.
A further issue involves the scaling of results to different CO 2 price levels. Since the calculations for the very short– and the short-run are based on a relatively simple linear model, they can be readily scaled up or down to reflect different assumptions about CO 2 prices. However, one has to be careful about the app lication of the calculated demand elasticities, j η , as these are derived from the parameters in the mu ltisector CGE model and ar e strictly intended for marginal analyses. How the system would respond to large increases in pri ces is an issue that should be carefully considered. In the medium - and long-run horizons examined below, the model explicitly involves nonlinearities that cannot be so readily scaled.

Effects on Output over the Four Time Horizons

As noted in Section III, the CGE model that we use to consider the longer horizons only identifies three-digit–level indus tries for manufacturing. The comp lete data for trade flows and production parameters allow for a total of 21 sect ors instead of the 52 sectors analyzed for the very short– and short-run models. To compare th e output responses to the more detailed results in the short-run scenario we first aggregate the re sults for the 52 industries in Table 4 to the same 21 industrial categories. Table 6 disp lays the effects of a $10/ton of CO 2 (2005$) tax on output derived from the medium- and long-term models as well as the aggregated short-run effects.

It should be obvious that the aggregation process results in the loss of quite a bit of information. For example, the output effects fo r the nonmetallic minerals group range from –0.88 for other nonmetallic mineral products to –4.06 fo r cement. The group average output effect is the 1.2 percent for nonmetallic minerals given in the first column of Table 6. By their very nature, the group averages are smaller than the larg est effects detected at the more disaggregated level and larger than the smallest effects detected at the more aggregated level.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

31 Recall that in the medium run producers may substitute among all inputs except for capital. Thus, for example, firms may substitute labor for energy or gas for coal. Only in the long-run horizon can capital move to other se ctors and substitute for energy or labor. Furthermore, in the general equilibrium framew ork both producers and pu rchasers are changing their behavior, and these may have opposing eff ects on output over time. On one hand, producers are substituting inputs to reduce co sts and hence prices. Over time, lower prices should help raise sales and output. On the other hand, customer s are making substitutions to avoid the higher prices for carbon-intensive products and thus reducing their demands.
Looking across the columns of Table 6, from s hort run to long run, we see these opposing effects. The magnitudes of the output reductions ge nerally decline, but not uniformly. That is, the cost-reducing effect of input s ubstitution is generally, but not completely, dominant. Over time, for all but two manufacturing industries, the cost shock of the carbon tax is reduced, and smaller price increases are needed to cover the higher costs of carbon-in tensive inputs. Excluding the two exceptions, on average, the output losses in the manufacturing industries are reduced by about 16 percent between the shor t and medium time frames and by a further 1 percent between the medium- and long-run time frames. 11 For example, output losses in the transportation equipment industry decline from 1.1 percent in th e short run to 0.28 percent in the medium term and 0.23 percent in the long run. For primary meta ls the output loss falls from 1.6 percent to 1.3 percent in the medium run and to 1.2 percent in the long run.
For two manufacturing industries, petrol eum refining and fabricated metals, the flexibility associated with longer time horizons does not lead to reduced impacts. In fabricated metals, the short-run reduction in output was estimat ed to be 0.33 percent, and in the medium run it is 0.44 percent. Recall that the short-run effect was estimated by simply multiplying the elasticity j η by the percent change in unit costs. This is the effect of a simple change in the price
of good j . The general equilibrium effects considered in the medium run seem to dominate the effect of the industry’s own effort to lower cost s and prices; the customers’ response to changes in all prices is to lower demand for fabricated me tals by more than the effect of lower fabricated metal prices. That is, the shift in the demand curve is bigger than the movement along the demand curve caused by lower prices. From Table 3 we saw that changes in unit costs can vary

11 These calculations are based on an output-weighted average of the in dividual industry-level estimates.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

32 substantially across sectors; for example, the el ectricity price rises substantially, while the relative price of wood falls.
Recall that petroleum refining is a special case, where we imposed a smaller elasticity in the short run. Thus, the output effect in the medi um run is much bigger th an the short-run effect.
Among the nonmanufacturing industries we also see both patterns of diminished and expanded output effects over time. For the fossi l fuels sectors and services, the effect of producers adapting inputs to lower costs dominat es, and output losses diminish over time. For the other industries, the general equilibrium effects of customers switching even more to substitute products dominate, and ou tput declines further over time.
The changes in industry level outputs as we m ove from the world of from fixed capital in
the medium term to one of mobile capital in the long run are quite varied. In three of the twelve manufacturing industries, appare l, primary metals, and transpor tation equipment, the long-run effects on output are smaller than those in the me dium run. That is, the ability to substitute capital for other inputs leads to both lower costs and lower prices, dampening the initial effect of the carbon tax. In five industries, food, textiles, lumber, fabricated meta ls, and other machinery, the response is essentially unchanged. That is, th e effect of lowering costs by substituting capital is canceled out by the general equilibrium effects of all the other changes in the prices. In three industries (refining, chemicals, and nonmetallic mineral products) the output reduction in the long run is slightly bigger than the medium run. These are the mo st energy- and carbon-intensive industries, and their products experience the biggest price increases. In th e medium run their
customers are limited to substituti ng alternative intermediate input s and labor, but in the long run they may substitute capital, thereby reduc ing the demand for these high-carbon content intermediate inputs even furthe r. For example, in the medium run nonmetallic mineral products experience a 1.14 percent reduction in sales a nd output, but in the l ong run they see a 1.20 percent reduction.
For one manufacturing industry, electrical mach inery, output rises slig htly in the long run even though it falls in the medium run. This is due to the full-employment assumption; factors
that are reallocated out of the declining industries have to go so mewhere, and some ended up in electrical machinery and services. Labor supply is elastic and falls sl ightly, but the national capital stock is assumed to be fixed.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

33 Employment and Capital Utilization over Time

Recall that we have defined the short-r un horizon as the period where producers are unable to change inputs per unit output, that is, the employment output rati o is fixed. Thus, the percentage change in employment due to the imposition of a carbon price is equal to the percentage change in output, as shown in Table 3 for the detailed 52 industries and in Table 6 for the aggregated 21 industries. The employment re sults for the 21 aggregated industries are shown
in the first column of Table 7.
In the medium-run case producers may substitute among intermediate inputs and labor, while over the long run all inputs, including capital, may be substituted for each other. Thus, in both the medium- and long-run cases, labor de mand depends on both the output level and the degree of substitution among inputs. Clearly, one woul d expect the impacts to be smaller than in the short-run, no-substitution case. Capital use in the long run is driven by two opposing effects. On one hand, the outputs of the carbon-intens ive sectors are reduced, reducing the demand for capital. On the other hand, there is substitution from expensive energy to cheaper capital, which increases the demand for cap ital in these sectors.
The effects on employment and capital us e for the medium- and long-run horizons estimated from simulating the general equilibri um model are shown in Table 7. The results comparing the short-run to the medium- and long -run cases for employment are similar but not identical to the output effects shown in Table 6. In all but two manuf acturing industries, the reduction in employment is smaller in the medium and long term horizons compared to the shortrun, no-substitution case. For example, in chemicals the short-run reduction of 1.7 percent is reduced to 0.81 percent in the medium run and to 0.47 percent in the long r un. In primary metals the corresponding reductions range from –1.57 pe rcent to –1.10 percent to –0.69 percent, respectively.
Comparing the change in employment to the change in output given in Table 6, we see that in more than half the manufacturing industr ies, the percentage reduction in employment is smaller than the reduction in output, indicati ng some substitution of labor for carbon-intensive inputs. In four other manufact uring industries the percentage reduction in labor exceeds the reduction in output due to the s ubstitution between capital and la bor. Since capital is assumed fixed in this scenario, the indus try is unable to shed capital gi ven the reduction in sales and output. Thus, it makes larger reductions in employ ment. The higher elasticity of capital–labor substitution for petroleum refining l eads to the biggest fall in empl oyment of any industry. In the case of food manufacturing, employment in th e medium run actually rises by a small amountResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

34 despite the reduction in output, likely due to th e small output effect and the strong substitution away from carbon-intensive intermediate inputs. Not surprisingl y, this is an industry where the
carbon embodied in the other intermed iate inputs is greater than the carbon in the fossil fuel used or electricity used.
Another exception to the general pattern occurs in the case of fabricated metals. Here the greater labor reduction in the medium run follo ws the unusual pattern of a larger output
reduction in the medium run. Petr oleum refining is also a special case that has a greater mediumrun output reduction due to the use of more el astic parameters in the general equilibrium
calculation.
Going from the medium to the long run, the reduction in employment diminishes in all cases. In two extreme manufacturing cases, appa rel and electrical machinery, the medium-run employment reductions turn to gains in the long run. That is, the ability to substitute capital for the more expensive carbon-intensive inputs in th e long run lead to bigger reductions in energy consumption and smaller re ductions in labor use.
As noted above, there are two opposing effects on capital use, and the net the effect is negative for all but thr ee manufacturing industries. That is , the reduction in capital demand due to the reduction in output dominates the substitu tion of capital for energy in most industries. Only in the food, apparel, and electrical m achinery industries are the long-run demands for capital slightly hi gher after a carbon tax is in place.
In the nonmanufacturing industries we also see a smaller employment impact in the medium run compared to the short run except fo r two industries. In th e gas industry and other mining, the output reduction is bigger in the me dium run compared to the short run, and employment follows the same pattern. The two foss il fuel mining industries continue to see large reductions in employment, albeit sma ller than the short-run impacts.
In the medium run, we assume full employme nt. Thus, labor that is released from the declining sectors moves to the expanding sectors. Services is the big reci pient of this released labor; the small 0.18 percent change is multiplied by a very large number of workers there. The most interesting industry is elect ric utilities, where output falls by 1.4 percent but employment rises by 8 percent in the medium run. This is due to the high value-added substitution elasticity for this industry (see Appendix B, Table B5, v σ ); the system is trying to substitute away from fossil fuel inputs, and since capital is fixe d in the medium-run case, the demand for labor increases to replace fossil fuels.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

35 Going from the medium to long run, the th ree fossil fuel mining industries actually see greater employment losses. That is, the users of fuels substitute capital for fuel over the longer term and the demand for coal, oil, and gas falls , leading to lower empl oyment. For agriculture, construction, and transportation, the impact is softened over time, as capital moves out of the declining sectors and firms move toward the now relatively ch eaper labor. The capital that moves out of the declining carbon-in tensive sectors goes to services and, perhaps surprisingly, to the electricity sector. However, given the nest of substitution possibilities in the electricity industry this should be expected: the cost of fuel inputs has rise n substantially, and the system substitutes value added for it, which ra ises both capital and labor demands.
The changes due to the carbon tax calculated by the general equilibrium model depend, of course, on the functional forms used and the el asticities imposed. Our calculations here are certainly not the only plausible ones; other flex ible functional forms would have generated a different pattern of changes. Th e key point is that output and em ployment responses change over time and they change due to actions taken by both producers and customers. The adjustments by customers may well overwhelm the actions take n by producers to reduce long-run costs, thus generating bigger losses over the long run.

Trade Impacts
We turn now to the impacts of CO 2 pricing on international competitiveness. Up to this point we have been discussing the effects on out put, profits, and employme nt. Competitiveness is a demand-side issue, that is, how domestic and foreign customers choose between or among different suppliers. Domestic consumption is supplied by domestic output less the exported portion, plus imports. “Leakage” refers to emissions increases in the rest of the world as a result of the domestic policy. The way we use the term , industry specific leakage is a measure of the percent reduction in domes tic output that is made up by a change in net imports as a result of the domestic policy. Using this definition, we ar e recognizing changes in global output flows, but not any changes in the carbon intensity of those flows. 12
In simulating the medium- and long-run hor izons with the CGE model, we impose a carbon tax on fossil fuel consumpti on that is equivalent to a tax on both domestic fuel output and

12 In a case where all domestic output losses were fully offset by increased foreign output and the CO 2 emissions intensity was greater than the domestic intensity, global emi ssions could increase. In the ab sence of specific data on the CO 2 intensity of foreign-produced goods, we do not explicitly examine this case.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

36 imported fuels. However, we do not tax imports of manufactured goods to offset the effects of
the tax on domestic manufacturers. In this fr amework there is no leakage of carbon reductions due to imported coal and oil, but some leakag e due to increased imports of manufactured goods. The results are displayed in Table 8.
The first column of Table 8 presents th e model base year values for domestic consumption of the 21 commodities. National domestic consumption is the sum of consumption by firms, households, and governme nt and is equal to domestic output plus imports less exports (ignoring changes in inventories, which are not modeled). The second column gives the changes in consumption due to a $10/ton CO 2 tax, while the last three columns present the contributions of the changes in terms of output, imports, and exports.

We observe a similar, albeit va ried, set of trade impacts acro ss the different industries. In the case of chemicals, for example, consumption fa lls by 0.62 percent. Of that amount, the fall in domestic output contributes 1.30 percentage point s. However, this output reduction is offset by an increase in imports of 0.18 points and a re duction in exports of 0.50 points [–0.62 = –1.30 + 0.18 – (–0.50)]. Stated alternativel y, the large fall in output of 1.1 percent (see Table 6), does not lead to a large fall in consumption, as imports rise to make up about 14 percent of the output reduction, and the diversion of previous exports to domestic use makes up another 38 percent. The result is that consumption of chemicals falls by only 0.62 percent, that is, the reduction in global carbon emissions due to a fall in chemical output is not the large 1.1 percent reduction in U.S. chemicals–related emissions, but only a 0. 62 percent chemicals-related reduction in the United States plus a very small reduction in the rest of the world due to more expensive U.S. chemical exports. The leakage for ch emicals is thus a substantial 52 percent, more (less) if the production in the rest of the world is more (less) carbon intensive than U.S. production.
We can see a similar pattern for the other carbon-intensive manuf acturing industries: a modest increase in imports and a bigger reductio n in exports. Of the 0. 49 percent reduction in consumption of nonmetallic mineral products, th e rise in imports contributed 0.13 points and exports contributed 0.29 points (a 46 percent leakage). Of the 0.66 percent reduction in primary metals use, imports contributed 0.16 points a nd exports 0.30 points (a 41 percent leakage).

Overall, the emissions increase in the rest of the world is 26 percen t of the reduction in U.S. emissions as a result of a unilateral U.S. carbon tax. This is a relatively high leakage rate
but consistent with other studies. World Ba nk (2008) first cites the IPCC 2001 report as estimating leakages in the order of 5-20 percent, a nd then, after examining the historical shifts in trade, concluded there is “som e evidence...of leakage of carbon- and energy-intensive industriesResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

37 to developing economies.” Babiker (2005) reports th at most studies find l eakage rates associated with the Kyoto Protocol of 5-25 percent. Babiker’s own calculations, based on a highly aggregated model (7 goods, 7 regions), sugge sts aggregate leakage rates ranging from 20-130 percent from the Kyoto Protocol. These studies are not directly comparable to our unilateral U.S. policy, but do give a sense of the range of possibilities. Fisher a nd Fox (2007) analyze a unilateral policy but consider a complex combina tion of carbon tax and ou tput subsidies. They report an aggregate leakag e rate of 12-15 percent. As previous ly noted, at the industry level there is quite a wide range, for example, for the ener gy intensive industries the leakage rate is 40-45 percent. Similarly, the le akage rate in Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) is 35 percent. 13
In this simple one-period model, the trade defi cit of each region is held fixed, that is, the
carbon tax scenario has the same deficit as the ba se case. The increase in imports and reduction of exports of the carbon-intensive commodities are offset by a reduction in imports and an increase in exports of other commodities induced by the endogenous exchange rate to maintain the trade deficits. The electrical machinery indus try actually experiences both a reduction in imports and a rise in exports. Recall that petr oleum product imports are also subject to a carbon tax, and imports of that commodity also fall.

These trade effects are sensitiv e to the import elasticities assumed. Since the CGE model is quite aggregated with only 12 manufacturing sect ors, some of the elasti cities are smaller than might be appropriate for a more disaggregated set of industries. That is, if we were able to
conduct this medium-run exercise for the 52 industri es that were used for the short-run analysis, we would likely see a bigger import response for some commodities and an even bigger degree of leakage. Of course, this would be offset by smaller impacts (leakage) in other industries.

VII. Cross-Model Comparisons
Debate on the impact on industry of an econom ywide carbon tax or cap-and-trade system has, quite naturally, focused on the most adversely a ffected industries. In that context it is useful to compare the relative rankings of the different industries across the f our modeling horizons considered here. Comparing all four time horizons according to the 21 industry classifications

13 Our results differ from those of others for various reasons, including the fact that other models may have different amounts of regional detail than ours. Also, some include output subsidies and consider a higher tax rate than we do. Since the models are non-linear, our relatively smaller tax may be expected to generate larger leakages compared to others.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

38 used in our modeling, it appears that the relative rankings are reasonably consistent across all horizons, with only a few exceptions (Table 9). 14 Thus, among manufacturing industries, primary metals, nonmetallic minerals, petroleu m refining, and chemi cals and plastics rank relatively high across all four time horizons, whil e food, electrical mach inery, and apparel rank relatively low. The Spearman rank correlation coe fficient between the very short run and the short run is 0.37; between the short and medium run the correl ation is 0.46; and between the medium and long runs, the coefficient is 0. 97. For nonmanufacturing industries, a roughly similar pattern applies. The corresponding Spearman rank coefficients are –0.33, 0.68, and 0.98, respectively.
As another cross check, we compare the relative rankings of published U.S. and European analyses for manufacturing industries (Table 10). Although the industry boundaries are
not identical across the different studies, the rankings appear r oughly similar, with a few notable exceptions. For the U.S. studies, the results ar e quite close, reflecti ng the common data and definitions used in the analyses. When comparing the U.S. and European results, however, the differences appear somewhat greater. Most si gnificant is the cement industry, which ranks number one in the European case studies prep ared by McKinsey (2006) and by Reinaud (2005) and number two in the cross-industry study of th e United Kingdom developed by Hourcade et al. (2007). In contrast, cement is roughly in the t op quarter in the U.S. analyses. One possible explanation for these differences is the inclusion of process emissions in the European analyses. On the assumption that a U.S. emissions cont rol policy would eventually include process
emissions from cement and other relevant industr ies, one would expect th ese industries to move up in the rankings to more closely re semble their European counterparts.
A further difference between the U.S. and European analyses can be seen in the analyses of the petroleum refining industry, which ranks high in the United States and only appears in one of the European studies. In fact, neither th e Reinaud (2005) nor the Hourcade et al. (2007) analyses even analyzed petroleum refining. Mc Kinsey (2006) did include it and found that it ranked number two behind cement. While petr oleum refining is an important industry worldwide, it is also a particularly complex one to analyze given the lack of a consensus on the short- and long-run demand elastic ities for petroleum products. We have used a relatively low elasticity for our short-run estim ate and thus put the output fall at a modest 0.8 percent per

14 Most notable among the rank changes is petroleum refining, which moved up from roughly the middle of the pack in the very short–run and short-run analyses to the most adversely impacted sector in the long run.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

39 $10/ton CO 2 tax. When we use the CGE model with larger elasticities, however, the output effects are larger, almost 5 percent. This is due to several different e ffects: the substitution by users toward capital and other i nputs and the influence of higher petroleum prices on the price of oil-intensive commodities; for example, the higher price of transportation fuels reduces the use
of these fuels.

VIII. Conclusions
Any broad-based CO 2 pricing policy will have disproportionate impacts on carbonintensive, import-sensitiv e industries. Two key challenges fo r policy development are to identify
the hardest hit industrie s and to understand the full extent a nd likely duration of the impacts. Defining carbon intensity to include the emissions associated with direct combustion as well as the purchase of electricity and other intermediate inputs, we use four modeling approaches as a proxy for the time horizons over which firms can pa ss through added costs, change input mix, adopt new technologies, and reallo cate capital. While ou r modeling analyses are based on a fairly detailed list of industries, furt her disaggregation would certainly show an even broader range of responses. With this caveat in mind, examination of the results of a $10/ton CO 2 charge over what we label the very short–, short-, medi um-, and long-run horizons yields a number of
observations:

• Measured by the reduction in domestic output, a readily identifiable se t of industries is at greatest risk of contraction over both the short and long terms. Within the manufacturing sector, at a relatively aggreg ate, two- or three-digit indus try classification level, the hardest hit industries are petroleum refining, chemicals and plastics, primary metals, and nonmetallic minerals.

• Although the short-run output reductions are re latively large in th ese industries, they shrink over time as firms adjust inputs and adopt new technologies. The industries that continue to bear the impacts are the same ones affected initially, albeit at reduced levels. When impacts are measured in terms of re duced profits, the rebound is especially large and, for some industrie s, virtually complete.

• Focusing on the nearer-term time frames, wh ere certain simplifying assumptions enable us to conduct a more disaggregated analysis , we observe that th e greatest harm is concentrated in particular sub-segments of these industries. Petroc hemical manufacturing and cement see very short–run cost increases of more than 4 percent, while iron and steel, aluminum, and lime products see cost increases exceeding 2 percent.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

40 • Turning to the nonmanufacturing sector, we see that while the overall size of the production losses also decline over time, a more diverse pattern applies. Specifically, the impact on electric utilities does not substant ially worsen over time compared to other industries such as mining, which experiences a continuing erosion of sales, as broader adjustments occur throughout the economy. Agriculture faces modest but persistent output declines over time, while the service sector is largely unscathed across all time horizons.

• In terms of employment, the short-term job losses are modeled as proportional to those of output. Over the longer term, however, when labor markets are able to adjust, the remaining losses are fully offset by gains in other industries.

• Our analysis of trade effects at the relatively aggregate two- or th ree-digit classification level assumes that manufactured products are subject to increased foreign competition but fuels are not. That is, while out baseline includes some form of border adjustment for fuels per se , no such mechanism is assumed for ma nufactured goods. We find that pricing CO 2 emissions increases manufactured imports and reduces manufactured exports in parallel with reducing domestic output. Overal l, the leakage rate in the long run is 26 percent when viewed across the entire economy, that is, increases in emissions in the rest of the world offset about a quarter of the U. S. reductions. Not surprisingly, the leakage rate for the three most energy-intensive sectors – chemicals, nonmetallic mineral products, and primary metals – is considerab ly higher. The leakage rate for these top three industries is more than 40 percent.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

41 References
Adkins, Liwayway G. 2006. Coordinating Global Tr ade and Environmental Policy: The Role of Pre-Existing Distortions. Ph.D. dissertion. University of Virginia.
Aldy, Joseph and William Pizer. 2008. The Co mpetitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Policies. RFF Discussion Paper 08–21. Forthcoming. Washington DC: Resources for
the Future.
Babiker, Mustafa H. 2005. Climate Change Polic y, Market Structure, and Carbon Leakage. Journal of International Economics 65(2): 421–445.
Fischer, Carolyn and Alan K. Fox. 2007. Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating Tax and Trade Interactions. Land Economics 83(4): 575–599.
Fischer, Carolyn and Richard D. Morgenstern. 2006. Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates? The Energy Journal 27(2): 73–86.
Greenstone, Michael. 2002. The Impacts of Envi ronmental Regulations on Industrial Activity:
Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amen dments and the Census of Manufacturers. Journal of Political Economy 110(6).
Ho, Mun S., and Dale W. Jorgensen. 1998. Stabi lization of Carbon Emissions and International Competitiveness of U.S. Industries. In Growth Volume 2: Energy, the Environment, and
Economic Growth , edited by Dale Jorgensen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hourcade, J.C., K. Neuhoff, D. Demailly and M. Sato. 2007. Differentiation and Dynamics of EU ETS Industrial Competitiveness Impacts . Climate Strategies 2007. Available at: http://www.climatestrategies.org/reportfiles/1_c limatestrategies_competitiveness_final_report_1 40108.pdf
Houser, Trevor, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, and Robert Heilmayr. 2008. Leveling the Carbon Playing Fiel d: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design

. Washington, DC: The Peterson Institute.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Working Group III, United Nations, New York.
Jorgensen, Dale W., and Peter J. Wilcoxen. 199 3. Reducing U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An
Assessment of Alternative Instruments. Journal of Policy Modeling 15(5–6): 491–520.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

42 Jorgenson, Dale, Richard Goettle, Mun Ho, and Peter Wilcoxen. 2007. The Economic Costs of a Market-Based Climate Policy. White paper. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Levinson, Arik and M. Scott Taylor. 2008. Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect. International
Economic Review 49(1): 223–254

. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). 2002. Washington, DC: Energy
Information Administration. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs /mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html

. McKinsey & Company and Ecofys. 2006. EU ETS Review: Report on International Competitiveness. European Commission (Directo rate General for Environment), Brussels.

Miller, Ronald E., and Peter D. Blair. 1985. Input–Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions

. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Morgenstern, R.D., Mun Ho, Jhih-Shyang Shih, and Xuehua Zhang. 2004. The Near-Term Impacts of Carbon Mitigation Poli cies on Manufacturing Industries. Energy Policy 32(16):
1825–1842.
Reinaud, J. 2005. Industrial Competitiveness und er the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Paris, International Energy Agency.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2006 Annual Energy Review . Washington, DC.
Wiese, A.M. 1998. Impacts of Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Policies on U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness. Resear ch study # 90. Washington, DC: American
Petroleum Institute.

World Bank. 2008. International Trade and Clim ate Change. The World Bank, Washington D.C.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

43 Tables

Table 1. Import Shares and Energy Cost As Share of Total Costs

Share of Total Costs (%)

Electricity Fuel combustion Total energy (including noncombustible) Intermediate inputs Import Manufacturing industries Food 1.0 0.9 1.9 66.9 8.3 Textile 3.3 1.1 4.5 60.2 27.2 Apparel 0.6 0.3 0.9 57.7 73.4 Wood and furniture 1.4 0.4 1.7 57.9 21.8 Pulp mills 3.0 5.6 8.8 64.5 45.8 Paper mills 4.9 3.7 8.6 55.2 20.6 Paperboard mills 5.1 5.8 11.0 57.4 0.5 Other papers 1.1 0.4 1.5 57.4 4.5 Refining–LPG 1.3 7.0 69.8 88.1 0.0 Refining–other 1.3 7.0 69.9 88.1 12.3 Petrochemical manufacturing 5.3 26.4 46.5 77.6 10.0 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 11.2 1.8 13.9 67.0 28.4 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 3.8 6.8 22.4 80.3 25.7 Plastics material and resin mfg. 2.7 3.8 21.9 81.4 15.3 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 2.5 4.1 6.7 78.7 13.8 Fertilizer manufacturing 3.6 13.3 36.0 80.3 26.7 Other chemical and plastics 1.8 0.7 2.7 52.2 20.8 Glass container manufacturing 5.9 6.3 12.2 49.2 13.5 Cement manufacturing 11.6 11.3 23.4 49.5 14.3 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 1.8 4.6 6.6 58.6 2.1 Mineral wool manufacturing 5.1 4.0 9.2 53.5 7.3 Other nonmetallic mineral 1.9 2.7 4.7 53.8 18.1 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 9.0 5.9 15.6 59.4 22.1 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 19.8 7.3 27.6 51.6 29.8 Ferrous metal foundries 3.7 1.1 4.8 45.3 3.1 Nonferrous metal foundries 1.9 1.4 3.3 59.3 0.0 Other primary metals 4.4 1.9 6.3 61.6 41.1 Fabricated metals 1.4 0.5 1.9 52.6 12.7 Machinery 0.7 0.2 0.9 57.3 29.3 Computer and electrical equipment 0.9 0.3 1.2 52.9 49.8 Motor vehicles 0.7 0.3 1.0 62.6 41.9 Other transportation equipment 0.7 0.2 0.9 54.5 27.8 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.6 0.2 0.7 46.6 40.1 Nonmanufacturing industries Farms 1.5 2.2 3.9 58.5 8.5Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

44 Forestry, fishing, and hunting 0.2 1.6 1.9 37.6 22.0 Oil mining 1.3 1.1 2.4 48.0 59.8 Gas mining 1.3 1.1 2.4 48.0 33.1 Coal mining 2.0 1.8 3.9 45.2 3.4 Other mining activities 2.4 2.6 5.1 48.8 0.8 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 0.0 13.1 13.2 31.7 0.5 Gas utilities 0.0 0.1 43.4 66.5 0.0 Construction 0.3 2.2 2.7 50.0 0.0 Trade 0.8 0.3 1.2 31.4 –1.2 Air transportation 0.1 9.5 10.4 45.7 17.8 Truck transportation 0.3 5.6 6.4 51.3 1.2 Other transportation 0.7 3.7 4.6 37.0 –2.8 Information 0.3 0.3 0.6 34.2 0.6 Finance and insurance 0.2 0.1 0.2 21.1 2.5 Real estate and rental 0.8 0.1 0.9 22.2 0.0 Business services 0.4 0.7 1.1 22.9 0.5 Other services 1.1 0.4 1.5 39.0 0.1 Government excluding electricity 0.5 1.9 2.6 37.8 0.0Resources for the FutureHo, Morgenstern, and Shih45Table 2. Combusted-Only Energy Consumption and CO2Intensity, 2002Output(billion $)Coal(millionshorttons)Crudeoil(millionbbls)Petroleum–LPG(millionbbls)Petroleum–other(millionbbls)Gas(billioncu. ft.)Electricity(billionkWh)CO2intensity(ton CO2/million $)Manufacturing industriesFood 470.4 9.1 0.0 1.4 21.2 605.0 75.2 224.9Textile 59.7 1.0 0.0 0.6 3.5 100.0 30.1 461.9Apparel 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 20.0 4.3 88.2Wood and furniture 136.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.2 80.0 28.0 168.1Pulp mills 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 23.0 1.6 1050.2Paper mills 45.3 13.2 0.0 0.4 8.2 216.0 34.0 1362.5Paperboard mills 21.1 3.8 0.0 0.1 5.6 183.0 16.4 1409.4Other papers 173.3 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.0 113.0 28.3 142.1Refining–LPG 21.0 1.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 94.1 4.1 1280.6Refining–others 169.8 11.6 325.1 6.0 0.0 759.9 33.1 1327.8Petrochemical manufacturing 14.7 1.1 2.2 156.5 7.3 168.0 11.9 4118.3Other basic inorganic chemicalmfg.15.2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.9 66.5 25.9 1444.1Other basic organic chemical mfg. 47.6 7.1 2.1 32.2 11.0 479.0 27.5 1474.5Plastics material and resin mfg. 44.8 1.2 1.4 10.0 0.2 291.2 18.6 731.5Artificial and synthetic fibers,filaments 7.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 55.2 2.9 792.0Fertilizer manufacturing 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 203.0 4.5 1716.6Other chemicals and plastics 403.1 3.5 0.1 5.1 15.4 473.0 109.9 267.6Glass container manufacturing 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 3.9 1197.3Cement manufacturing 7.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 16.1 21.0 12.5 5080.7Lime and gypsum product mfg. 4.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 7.0 1.4 1775.0Mineral wool manufacturing 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 34.0 3.8 884.6Other nonmetallic mineral 67.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 6.8 297.0 19.9 477.7Iron and steel mills, ferroalloymfg. 41.9 19.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 383.5 57.5 2242.7Alumina refining, primary 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 22.9 127.0 56.7 2717.7Resources for the FutureHo, Morgenstern, and Shih46aluminumFerrous metal foundries 14.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 26.9 8.2 477.1Nonferrous metal foundries 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 30.0 3.2 321.0Other primary metals 28.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 2.2 84.0 18.9 645.7Fabricated metals 219.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 204.0 47.1 186.8Machinery 221.6 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.0 80.0 24.6 91.5Computer and electricalequipment 363.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.0 114.0 52.3 119.1Motor vehicles 326.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.8 154.1 36.3 99.7Other transportation equipment 134.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 43.5 14.2 89.2Miscellaneous manufacturing 115.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 31.0 10.4 72.1Nonmanufacturing industriesFarms 177.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 119.9 58.0 41.1 430.5Forestry, fishing, and hunting 34.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 1.4 0.9 227.4Oil mining 61.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.7 71.7 12.4 248.8Gas mining 41.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 48.3 8.3 248.8Coal mining 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 36.3 5.8 394.8Other mining activities 57.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.4 151.1 21.0 533.1Electric utilities (includinggovernment enterprises) 259.6 977.5 0.0 0.0 91.4 5,676.8 0.0 8647.6Gas utilities 82.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.4 13.7Construction 966.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 669.2 123.4 44.7 310.2Trade 1,850.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 145.5 349.7 232.8 119.1Air transportation 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 311.0 0.8 1.2 1250.7Truck transportation 194.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 357.0 23.0 8.4 760.7Other transportation 329.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.2 634.0 32.9 573.5Information 824.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 275.0 42.3 65.5Finance and insurance 1,138.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 45.5 26.1 21.4Real estate and rental 1,932.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 59.3 172.2 222.3 88.0Business services 1,710.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 352.6 307.7 100.1 127.8Other services 2,370.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.1 1,079.7 403.6 147.7Government excluding electricity 2,043.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 910.4 2,795.9 159.3 300.0Note: CO2intensity is derived from fossil fuels combusted and electricity use.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

47 Table 3. Very Short–Run Time Horizon: Estimated Percent Increase in Production Costs per $10/ton CO 2 (2005$)

Total cost Fuel cost Purchased electricity Indirect cost Manufacturing industries Food 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 Textile 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 Apparel 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Wood and furniture 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Pulp mills 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 Paper mills 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 Paperboard mills 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.2 Other papers 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 Refining–LPG 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 Refining–others 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 Petrochemical mfg. 4.2 3.4 0.5 0.4 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.2 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 2.0 1.1 0.3 0.6 Plastics material and resin mfg. 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 Fertilizer manufacturing 1.8 1.3 0.3 0.2 Other chemical and plastics 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 Glass container manufacturing 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 Cement manufacturing 5.0 3.8 1.0 0.2 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 2.1 1.5 0.2 0.5 Mineral wool manufacturing 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 Other nonmetallic mineral 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.6 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 2.3 1.3 0.8 0.2 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 2.6 0.8 1.8 0.1 Ferrous metal foundries 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 Nonferrous metal foundries 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 Other primary metals 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 Fabricated metals 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 Machinery 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Computer and electrical equipment 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 Motor vehicles 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 Other transportation equipment 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

48 Nonmanufacturing industries Farms 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 Forestry, fishing, and hunting 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 Oil mining 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 Gas mining 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 Coal mining 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 Other mining activities 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 8.3 8.2 0.0 0.1 Gas utilities 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Construction 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 Trade 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Air transportation 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.3 Truck transportation 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 Other transportation 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 Information 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Finance and insurance 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Real estate and rental 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Business services 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Other services 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Government excluding electricity 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1

Table 4. Short-Run Time Horizon: Effect of a $10/ton CO 2 Charge on Output (percent change)
Short-run partial equilibrium effect only Manufacturing industries Food –0.38 Textile –1.13 Apparel –1.03 Wood and furniture –0.34 Pulp mills –1.00 Paper mills –1.08 Paperboard mills –1.11 Other papers –0.46 Refining–LPG –0.68 Refining–others –0.79 Petrochemical mfg. –7.65 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. –1.92 Other basic organic chemical mfg. –3.66 Plastics material and resin mfg. –3.95 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments –1.83 Fertilizer manufacturing –3.58 Other chemical and plastics –1.00 Glass container manufacturing –1.04Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

49 Cement manufacturing –4.06 Lime and gypsum product mfg. –1.73 Mineral wool manufacturing –0.97 Other nonmetallic mineral –0.88 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. –2.06 Alumina refining, primary aluminum –2.42 Ferrous metal foundries –0.68 Nonferrous metal foundries –0.78 Other primary metals –1.08 Fabricated metals –0.33 Machinery –0.76 Computer and electrical equipment –1.00 Motor vehicles –1.24 Other transportation equipment –0.89 Miscellaneous manufacturing –0.65 Nonmanufacturing industries Farms –0.56 Forestry, fishing, and hunting –0.41 Oil mining –5.09 Gas mining –6.34 Coal mining –11.01 Other mining activities –0.49 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) –1.35 Gas utilities –4.95 Construction –0.42 Trade –0.16 Air transportation –1.05 Truck transportation –0.72 Other transportation –0.52 Information –0.13 Finance and insurance –0.06 Real estate and rental –0.10 Business services –0.15 Other services –0.21 Government excluding electricity –0.31Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

50 Table 5. Very Short Run versus Short Run: Effect on Profits of a $10/ton CO 2 Tax (percent change)

Very short run (quantities fixed) Short run (output changed) Manufacturing industries Food –0.39 –0.04 Textile –0.80 –0.11 Apparel –0.24 –0.10 Wood and furniture –0.49 –0.03 Pulp mills –0.85 –0.10 Paper mills –0.61 –0.11 Paperboard mills –0.63 –0.11 Other papers –0.47 –0.05 Refining–LPG –1.59 –0.07 Refining–others –1.92 –0.08 Petrochemical mfg. –2.26 –0.76 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. –9.38 –0.19 Other basic organic chemical mfg. –8.64 –0.37 Plastics material and resin mfg. –3.70 –0.40 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments –6.51 –0.18 Fertilizer manufacturing –4.71 –0.36 Other chemical and plastics –0.34 –0.10 Glass container manufacturing –0.50 –0.10 Cement manufacturing –1.52 –0.41 Lime and gypsum product mfg. –0.94 –0.17 Mineral wool manufacturing –0.51 –0.10 Other nonmetallic mineral –0.64 –0.09 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. –1.34 –0.21 Alumina refining, primary aluminum –1.10 –0.24 Ferrous metal foundries –0.43 –0.07 Nonferrous metal foundries –1.36 –0.08 Other primary metals –0.81 –0.11 Fabricated metals –0.51 –0.03 Machinery –0.35 –0.08 Computer and electrical equipment –0.22 –0.10 Motor vehicles –0.33 –0.12 Other transportation equipment –0.28 –0.09 Miscellaneous manufacturing –0.17 –0.06 Nonmanufacturing industries Farms –0.21 –0.06 Forestry, fishing, and hunting –0.18 –0.04Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

51 Oil mining –0.11 –0.51 Gas mining –0.11 –0.63 Coal mining –0.30 –1.10 Other mining activities –0.36 –0.05 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) –2.11 –0.14 Gas utilities –0.06 –0.49 Construction –0.44 –0.04 Trade –0.11 –0.02 Air transportation –1.11 –0.10 Truck transportation –0.56 –0.07 Other transportation –0.41 –0.05 Information –0.05 –0.01 Finance and insurance –0.02 –0.01 Real estate and rental –0.02 –0.01 Business services –0.09 –0.01 Other services –0.20 –0.02 Government excluding electricity –0.39 –0.03Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

52 Table 6. Effect on Output of a $10/ton CO 2 Tax (percent change)

Short-run

partial equilibrium effect only Medium-run general equilibrium effects with fixed capital Long-run general equilibrium with

reallocation of capital Manufacturing industries Food –0.38 –0.11 –0.12 Textile –1.13 –0.51 –0.50 Apparel –1.03 –0.18 –0.07 Lumber, wood, paper –0.53 –0.32 –0.32 Petroleum refining –0.78 –4.72 –5.36 Chemical and plastics –1.74 –1.11 –1.26 Nonmetallic mineral –1.20 –0.86 –0.94 Primary metals –1.57 –1.30 –1.21 Fabricated metals –0.33 –0.44 –0.43 Transportation equipment –1.14 –0.35 –0.27 Electrical machinery –1.00 –0.13 0.08 Other machinery and miscellaneous mfg. –0.72 –0.50 –0.49 Nonmanufacturing industries Agriculture –0.54 –0.58 –0.68 Coal mining –11.01 –4.89 –7.85 Oil mining –5.60 –1.02 –2.09 Gas –4.95 –5.33 –10.04 Other mining –0.49 –0.74 –1.06 Electric utilities –1.35 –1.37 –1.17 Construction –0.42 –0.32 –0.39 Transportation –0.67 –1.02 –1.15 Services –0.17 0.05 0.06Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

53 Table 7. General Equilibrium Effects on Employment and Capital of a $10/ton CO 2 Tax (percent change)

Employment Capital
Short run Medium run Long run Long run Manufacturing industries Food –0.38 0.06 0.08 0.02 Textile –1.13 –0.52 –0.32 –0.38 Apparel –1.03 –0.10 0.05 0.00 Lumber, wood, paper –0.53 –0.25 –0.10 –0.18 Petroleum refining –0.78 –5.64 –3.86 –3.93 Chemical and plastics –1.74 –0.81 –0.47 –0.55 Nonmetallic mineral –1.20 –0.67 –0.42 –0.49 Primary metals –1.57 –1.10 –0.69 –0.77 Fabricated metals –0.33 –0.44 –0.30 –0.37 Transportation equipment –1.14 –0.32 –0.15 –0.23 Electrical machinery –1.00 –0.05 0.21 0.13 Other machinery and miscellaneous mfg. –0.72 –0.55 –0.33 –0.41 Nonmanufacturing industries Agriculture –0.54 –0.12 –0.09 –0.09 Coal mining –11.01 –8.12 –10.15 –10.13 Oil mining –5.60 –2.14 –2.77 –2.80 Gas –4.95 –5.71 –9.15 –9.17 Other mining –0.49 –0.80 –0.99 –0.98 Electric utilities –1.35 8.08 3.52 3.44 Construction –0.42 –0.35 –0.33 –0.40 Transportation –0.67 –0.46 –0.34 –0.43 Services –0.17 0.18 0.16 0.07Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

54 Table 8. Long-Run Trade Effects of CO 2 Tax on Domestic and Imported Fuels

Contribution** Base case domestic consumption*

(million $) Domestic consumption with CO 2 tax (% change) Output Imports Exports Manufacturing industries Food 5,556 –0.03 –0.12 0.03 –0.06 Textile 1,232 –0.30 –0.45 0.05 –0.11 Apparel 1,605 0.10 –0.05 0.12 –0.02 Lumber, wood, paper 5,006 –0.25 –0.31 0.02 –0.05 Petroleum refining 1,579 –5.88 –5.61 –0.28 0.00 Chemical and plastics 5,569 –0.62 –1.30 0.18 –0.50 Nonmetallic mineral 967 –0.49 –0.91 0.13 –0.29 Primary metals 2,182 –0.66 –1.11 0.16 –0.30 Fabricated metals 2,278 –0.40 –0.43 –0.01 –0.03 Transportation equipment 5511 –0.22 –0.25 –0.02 –0.06 Electrical machinery 3,368 –0.19 0.07 –0.14 0.12 Other machinery and miscellaneous mfg. 7,014 –0.39 –0.47 –0.04 –0.12 Nonmanufacturing industries Agriculture 2,452 –0.27 –0.72 0.11 –0.34 Coal mining 253 –17.24 –10.15 –0.44 6.65 Oil mining 1067 –5.51 –1.07 –4.32 0.12 Gas 463 –10.68 –9.50 –1.22 –0.05 Other mining 275 –0.96 –1.03 –0.02 –0.09 Electric utilities 2,344 –1.00 –1.17 0.13 –0.04 Construction 9,936 –0.39 –0.39 0.00 0.00 Transportation 5,352 –0.76 –1.18 0.08 –0.33 Services 80,941 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 * From Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) model using a 1997 base year. ** Domestic consumption = output + imports – exports

.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

55 Table 9. Ranking Order of Impacts across Four Modeling Time Horizons
Percentage increase in production costs per $10/ton CO 2 tax (2005$) Effect on output of a $10/ton carbon tax (percent change)

Very short–run effect Short-run partial equilibrium effect only Medium-run general equilibrium effects with fixed capital Long-run general equilibrium with

reallocation of capital Manufacturing industries Primary metals 1 1 2 3 Nonmetallic mineral 2 4 4 4 Petroleum refining 3 8 1 1 Chemical and plastics 4 3 3 2 Textile 5 5 5 5 Lumber, wood, paper 6 10 9 8 Fabricated metals 7 12 7 7 Food 8 11 12 10 Transportation equipment 9 2 8 9 Other machinery and miscellaneous mfg. 10 9 6 6 Apparel 11 6 10 11 Electrical machinery 12 7 11 12 Spearman rank correlation Very short vs. short run 0.37 Short vs. medium run 0.46 Medium vs. long run 0.97 Nonmanufacturing industries Electric utilities 1 4 3 4 Transportation 2 8 5 5 Other mining 3 7 6 6 Agriculture 4 6 7 7 Coal mining 5 1 2 2 Construction 6 9 8 8 Oil mining 7 2 4 3 Services 8 5 9 9 Gas 9 3 1 1 Spearman rank correlation Very short vs. short run –0.33 Short vs. medium run 0.68 Medium vs. long run 0.98Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

56 Table 10. Comparison with Other Studies: Most Affected Manufacturing Industries by Output

Study No. Jorgenson et al. Fischer–Fox Hourcade et al. McKinsey Reinaud 1 Coal mining Coal Lime Cement Cement

2 Gas utilities (services) Electricity Cement Refining BOF steel

3 Petroleum refining Petroleum and coal products Basic iron and steel BOF steel newsprint

4 Electric utilities (services) Other mining and metals Refined petroleum products Primary Aluminum Aluminum

5 Primary metals Transport equipment Fertilizers and nitrogen compounds Paper EAF steel

6 Nonmetallic mineral mining Agriculture Aluminum EAF steel

7 Metal mining Construction Other inorganic basic chemicals

8 Stone, clay, and glass products Chemistry industry Pulp, paper, and paperboard 9 Motor vehicles Food products Malt

10 Nonelectrical machinery Paper–pulp–prin t Coke oven products

11 Chemicals and allied products Crude oil Industrial gases

12 Fabricated metal products Iron and steel industry Nonwovens

13 Crude oil and gas extraction Textiles–wearing apparel–leather Household and sanitary goods 14 Electrical machinery Natural gas Finishing of textiles 15 Furniture and fixtures Trans port equipment Hollow glass

16 Lumber and wood products Other machinery Rubber tires and tubes

17 Rubber and plastic products Wood and wood products Retreading and rebuilding of rubber tires

18 Construction Services (excluding transport) Veneer sheets, plywood, etc. 19 Instruments Other services Flat glass

20 Other transportation equipment Other manufacturing Other textile weaving

21 Textile mill products Trade, wholesale and retail Copper

22 Paper and allied products Throwing preparation 23 Miscellaneous Casting of ironResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

57 manufacturing

24 Wholesale and retail trade

25 Transportation and warehousing

26 Printing and publishing

27 Leather and leather products

28 Government enterprises

29 Finance, insurance, and real estate

30 Apparel and other textile products 31 Communications

32 Personal and business services

33 Agriculture, forestry, fisheries

34 Food and kindred products

35 Tobacco manufactures

BOF = basic oxygen furnance ; EAF = electric arc furnace.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

58 Appendix A. Data
The primary data for our analysis is draw n from the 2002 IO table for the U.S. and manufacturing energy use data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In this appendix we describe how we estimate the output s and inputs, including energy inputs, for the 52 industries identified in our study from thes e primary data. In doing this we highlight weaknesses in the primary data that, hopefully , can be strengthened in future versions.

A.1 Constructing an Input–Output Matrix for 2002
The Bureau of Economic Analysis produced 2002 benchmark IO data with detailed information on output and intermediate inpu ts for 428 commodities and 426 industries

. From the 2002 benchmark based on the NAICS classification, we aggregated the entire IO table into a 50-
commodities and 50-industries “U se” matrix as well as a 50 -industries and 50-commodities
“Make” matrix. The electric utilit y sector includes elec tric power generation, transmission, and distribution; federal electric util ities; and state and lo cal government electric utilities. Oil and gas mining is one sector in the original IO table. We split the commodity of oil and gas mining into two, oil mining and gas mining, on the basis of the commodity proportions. We also split the petroleum industry into refining– liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) a nd refining–others by using the same procedure. In the end, we have 52 industr ial/commodity sectors. We update the IO values of seven fuels, including coal, crude oil, gas mining, refining–LPG, refining–others, and natural gas, by using EIA’s MECS data. (We discuss the process of updating the seven individual fuel commodities later in this appendix.) We rebalan ce the Use matrix for the cells not in the seven fuel commodities constrained on the row (inter mediate commodity consumption) and column (intermediate industrial output) sums. We follow a sim ilar procedure for the Make matrix.
The resulting 52 industrial sectors are displa yed in the first column of Table A1. The values of industry and commodity output from IO tables (in millions of dollars) for our 52 industries are given in the second and third column s of Table A1 (in millions of dollars). These are domestic industry output values; the U.S. accounts distinguish between industries and commodities—each industry may make several commodities and each commodity may be made by a few industries. The domestic output classified by commodities is given in the third column in Table A1. Domestic consumption of commoditie s is output plus imports, less exports, plus inventory change. Consumption levels are displaye d in the last column of Table A1. We can see that total consumption is close to domestic output (i.e., net imports are small) for most items, but large for oil mining and apparel.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

59 Total consumption is the sum of intermedia te input purchases by industries and final demand. Final demand refers to purchases for consumption, investment, government, and exports. Given the focus on energy inputs, we prov ide the detailed estimates of input values of the seven energy commodities (o il mining, gas mining, coal mining, electric utilities, gas utilities, refining–LPG, and refining–others) for each of the 52 industries and final demand in Table A2. We note that these are gross purchases used for feedstocks and for combustion. They should not be simply added to obtain total na tional consumption. For example, petroleum refining buys a lot of crude oil from “oil and ga s mining,” and its output is purchased by all 52
industries and final demand.

A.2 Energy Use

We estimate CO 2 emissions for the 52 industrial s ectors by using quantities of fuel combusted. We consider seven different types of energy sources: coal, crude oil, natural gas from gas mining, natural gas from gas utility, refining–LPG, refining–others , and electricity. The quantities of these energies are mainly from the MECS, the Annual Energy Review (AER), the IO table, the USDA, and our own estimates. ME CS is our major source of energy consumption quantity data for manufacturing sectors. It is complemented by AER and USDA energy quantity data. We then use economywide energy consumpti on value data from the IO table and quantity data from AER to estimate energy consumption qua ntity data for other sectors. In the following section, we discuss the development of price and quantity data for th ese seven energy sources. One common way of estimating the quantity of energy use at this leve l of aggregation is to assume that every purchaser pays the same ec onomy average price and to apply that price to
the values in the IO table. As we noted earlier in Morgenstern et al. (2004), that is a poor assumption for some industries (e.g., aluminum smelting pays a much lower average price for electricity than other industries). We thus turn to independent measures of energy use quantities to compare with the estimates derived from IO dollar values.

A.2.1 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
MECS is the federal government’s most comprehensive source of information on energy use by U.S. manufacturing. MECS collects dataon energy consumption and expenditures, fuelswitching capability, onsite gene ration of electricity , by-product energy use, and other energyrelated topics. The manufacturing sector is defined according to NAICS. The manufacturing sector (NAICS Sectors 31–33) consis ts of all manufacturing establis hments in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia. Our analysis is based on 2002 data.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

60 MECS reports the quantities of coal , coke, residual fuel oil, dis tillate fuel oil, natural gas, LPG and NGL, and net electricity for the manuf acturing industries at the six-digit NAICS
level. 15 Specifically, the 2002 MECS Table 1.1 gives the information of Consumption of Energy for All Purposes (First Use); Table 2.1 give s information of Energy Used as a Nonfuel (Feedstock); and Table 3.1 provides data on Energy Consumption as a Fuel. Some energy quantity data are either too small (*) or withhe ld (W, Q). We treat the small numbers as zeros. For data which were withheld, we scale from available information. We also adopt other methods to estimate missing values, for example, en ergy balance. We use th e totals for the threedigit industries corresponding to our manufacturing industrial list. The total quantities of coal, oil, and gas for our 32 manufacturing industries are given in Tables A3a. We estimate the feedstock ratios by using MECS Tables 1.1 and 2.1. For comparison, we also derive the quantity of energy combusted in Table A3b, using IO and estimated average price data. As we can see, the combusted quantities derived using IO tabl e are not proportional to the quantities from
MECS.
We regard the quantities from MECS and the USDA as the best estimates and thus assume that these industries paid different aver age prices. For the other industries we have to assume a common price. This common price is de rived by first subtractin g the quantity used in the manufacturing group and agriculture from th e national total. The value of consumption outside of these two groups is then divided by th is residual quantity to give the common price. The use of coal, oil, and gas for each industry ou tside of manufacturing a nd agriculture is then the Use table value divided by the common price. In the following sections we discuss how we derive the total consumption and combusted quantity of various fuels.

A.2.2 Coal
We obtained the national quantity of coal (1 ,066.4 million short tons) consumed in the United States in 2002 as well as the quantity of coal consumed by the electric power sector (977.5 million short tons) from the AER (2006). 16 We also obtained the quantity of coal consumed by the manufacturing sector from MECS . We then used the IO value to estimate the quantities of coal consumption for nonmanufacturi ng sectors. We divided the intermediate value

15 The MECS for 2002 was downloaded from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/m ecs2002/data02/shelltables.html.

16 AER (2006); Table 7.3 gives the data for coal.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

61 by the intermediate quantity to give the intermedia te implicit price. We used this price along with the quantity of coal to update the IO values. Total coal cons umption and combusted coal are displayed in Table A4.

A.2.3 Oil

For 2002, total U.S. domestic crude oil c onsumption is 5,433 million barrels, which includes 2,097 million barrels 17 from domestic production and 3,336 million barrels 18 from imports. The petroleum industry consumes more than 99.9 percent (5,427 million barrels) of domestic consumption. However, most of the crude oil is consumed as feedstock to produce petroleum products. According to our estima te made by using MECS data, only about 365 million barrels (6.7%) are combusted. The balance (93.3 percent) is used as feedstock. The total consumption and combusted crude oil are listed in Table A5.

A.2.4 Petroleum
For 2002, total domestic consumption of petroleum is about 7,177 million barrels, which include 6,305 million barrels of domestic refinery production a nd 872 million barrels of refinery imports. The farm sector consumes a bout 130.1 million barrels of petroleum. 19 Electricity
utilities consume about 99.2 million barrels of petroleum. 20 We also obtained the petroleum consumption of manufacturing sectors by usin g MECS data. We then estimated petroleum consumption for other nonmanufacturing sectors by using the petroleum implicit price derived from the IO values and petroleum quantities.
The total consumption and combusted petroleu m–LPG and petroleum–others are listed in Tables A6 and A7, respectively.

A.2.5 Natural Gas
The sources of domestic natural gas consum ption in the IO table include natural gas mining and gas utility. The total amount of U. S. domestic natural gas consumption in 2002 is about 23,007 billion cubic feet. 21 We first estimated natural gas consumption from natural gas

17 AER (2006); Table 5.1 gives the data for crude oil domestic production.

18 AER (2006); Table 5.3 gives the data for crude oil imports.

19 James Duffield, Economic Research Service, USDA.

20 EIA Electric Power Annual (2006); http://www.eia. doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat4p1.html.

21 AER (2006); Table 6.1 gives the data of natural gas consumption.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

62 mining. Electric utilities consum e about 5,672 billion cubic feet of natural gas (assumed to be from gas mining). 22 We used total domestic and electric utility consumption quantities (noted above) as well as natural gas mining consumption value data from the IO table to estimate natural gas consumption quantity data for all indust rial sectors (electric utility). On the basis of this procedure, we estimate that gas utility pu rchased about 14,996 billion cubic feet of natural gas from gas mining. We know that the farm s ector consumes about 58 billion cubic feet of natural gas. 23 For the manufacturing sector, we know th e amount of natural gas consumed from gas utilities by subtracting natural gas consumpti on (from natural gas mining) from total natural gas consumption (obtained from MECS). Using these quantities and the value of gas utility consumption information from the IO table, we estimate the amount of natural gas consumption for other nonmanufacturing sectors. We then reca lculate the IO values fo r natural gas mining and gas utility by using their respective intermediate implicit prices. The total consumption and combusted natural gas are listed in Table A8.

A.2.6 Electricity
MECS (2002, Table 1.1) also gives the quantit y of electricity consumed by each of the manufacturing industries. This is reproduced in Table A3a. There are no equivalent surveys for nonmanufacturing industries that we are aware of. The National Agriculture Sta tistics Service collects data on energy expenses and prices at the regional leve l. The detailed data are not published, but a summary is given in the Farm Production Expenditures Annual Summary

. 24
James Duffield of the Economic Research Service us ed these data together with electricity price
data from other sources to make an unofficial estimate of Agriculture carbon emissions and kindly shared his calculations with us. From hi s estimates we obtain the electricity consumption given in Table A9.
We first compare this estimate of electricity consumption from MECS to the one in the
2002 IO table. Since neither source is based on a full census, the degree of consistency between these two sources would give us an idea of their reliability. To de rive the quantities from the IO data we first need prices.

22 AER (2006); Table 6.5.

23 James Duffield, Economic Research Service, USDA.

24 The Farm Production Expenditures Annual Summary is available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/v iewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1066.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

63 AER 25 gives the total national consumption in 2002 at 3,632 billion kWh. Applying this figure to the IO table value of electricity and electricity cons umption by manufacturing industries, we estimate electricity consumption for other nonmanufacturing sectors. We then use a common price to rescale the elect ricity consumption IO values.

A.3 CO 2

Emissions and Intensity

We estimate CO 2 emissions in the United States at 5,752 million metric tons, representing about 85 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. Most CO 2 is emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels and is highly correlated with ener gy use. In this research we consider primary CO 2 emissions from coal, oil, petroleum, and natural gas. We also consider total CO 2 emissions, which include primary emissions plus emissions due to electricity consumption for individual
sectors. Table A10 shows our estimates of total CO 2 emissions, CO 2 emissions from direct combustion of primary fuels, and CO 2 emissions due to electricity consumptions for individual sectors. Table A11 shows total and primary CO 2 emissions intensities; data are derived from dividing emissions by industrial output.

Appendix A. Tables

Table A1. Value of Industry and Commodity Output from IO Tables, 2002 (million $)

Sector Industry output Commodity output Commodity domestic consumption Farms 177,337 171,482 168,532 Forestry, fishing, etc. 34,382 41,502 48,460 Oil mining 61,093 51,295 126,146 Gas mining 41,144 35,996 52,569 Coal mining 19,269 19,172 18,881 Other mining activities 57,139 57,729 56,813 Electric utilities (including government enterpri ses) 259,603 250,078 250,852 Gas utilities 82,614 92,965 92,926 Construction 966,919 1,031,693 1,031,627 Food 470,396 474,835 486,680 Textile 59,670 53,357 62,447

25 EIA (2005); Table 8.1. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/.Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

64 Apparel 44,078 41,737 133,149 Wood and furniture 136,132 133,874 164,005 Pulp mills 3,443 5,197 5,177 Paper mills 45,319 45,945 52,514 Paperboard mills 21,095 19,847 19,882 Other papers 173,273 145,200 145,197 Refining–LPG 21,023 15,558 15,558 Refining–other 169,836 177,511 191,641 Petrochemical mfg. 14,743 18,531 18,270 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 15,177 17,270 17,745 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 47,573 49,531 47,725 Plastics material and resin mfg. 44,832 44,611 38,808 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 7,651 12,359 12,508 Fertilizer manufacturing 8,239 8,575 9,195 Other chemical and plastics 403,058 398,920 448,400 Glass container manufacturing 4,367 4,361 4,861 Cement manufacturing 7,058 7,022 8,132 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 4,900 4,818 4,837 Mineral wool manufacturing 4,834 4,810 4,787 Other nonmetallic minera l 67,020 65,907 74,686 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 41,942 52,665 62,903 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 18,765 18,104 22,262 Ferrous metal foundries 14,700 14,413 14,545 Nonferrous metal foundries 11,420 11,158 11,142 Other primary metals 28,403 21,628 29,823 Fabricated metals 219,291 212,025 225,327 Machinery 221,635 221,818 228,125 Computer and electrical equipment 363,578 352,482 466,241 Motor vehicles 326,173 323,386 450,146 Other transportation equipment 134,524 131,718 105,557 Miscellaneous manufacturing 115,134 112,248 158,471 Trade 1,850,478 1,733,304 1,645,222 Air transportation 99,315 102,362 102,147 Truck transportation 194,732 200,162 187,881 Other transportation 329,317 331,215 297,242 Information 824,047 648,073 625,365 Finance and insurance 1,138,654 1,083,077 1,074,983 Real estate and rental 1,931,963 1,997,938 1,953,017 Business services 1,710,85 9 1,975,840 1,927,957 Other services 2,370,176 2,728,059 2,729,030 Government excluding electricity 2,043,064 1,682,805 1,682,805Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

65 Table A2. Value of Energy Commodity Inputs for Industries, 2002 (million $)

Sector Oil mining Gas mining Coal mining Electric utilities Gas utilities Refining– LPG Refining– other Farms 0 0 3 2,696 312 0 3,950 Forestry, fishing, etc. 0 0 0 61 8 0 595 Oil mining 0 0 2 813 386 0 288 Gas mining 0 0 1 548 260 0 194 Coal mining 0 0 0 379 195 0 171 Other mining activities 0 1 3 1,376 812 0 740 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 0 13,536 17,752 0 26 0 3,011 Gas utilities 0 35,789 0 28 0 0 72 Construction 0 0 0 2,934 665 0 22,053 Food 0 6 165 4,932 3,282 28 700 Textile 0 2 18 1,978 539 12 117 Apparel 0 0 0 282 108 1 11 Wood and furniture 0 6 0 1,840 416 29 72 Pulp mills 0 0 5 104 123 0 70 Paper mills 0 2 240 2,231 1,159 7 269 Paperboard mills 0 2 69 1,074 981 2 185 Other papers 0 1 3 1,855 606 25 32 Refining–LPG 13,880 0 25 269 507 0 0 Refining–other 112,126 0 203 2,171 4,093 118 0 Petrochemical mfg. 51 131 20 783 802 4,707 369 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 5 134 15 1,700 98 55 103 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 49 471 130 1,806 2,400 3,693 2,108 Plastics material and resin mfg. 32 99 22 1,218 1,645 6,553 252 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 0 16 8 193 270 0 27 Fertilizer manufacturing 0 38 0 297 2,612 0 21 Other chemical and plastics 3 231 64 7,215 2,241 217 1,088 Glass container manufacturing 0 0 0 258 275 1 0 Cement manufacturing 0 0 193 818 113 0 530 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 0 0 54 89 38 0 144 Mineral wool manufacturing 0 0 0 246 189 1 8 Other nonmetallic mineral 0 1 6 1,305 1,597 13 224 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 0 1 345 3,771 2,222 1 188 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 0 3 0 3,719 704 3 754 Ferrous metal foundries 0 0 3 539 145 7 17 Nonferrous metal foundries 0 0 0 213 162 1 0 Other primary metals 0 0 10 1,240 452 14 71 Fabricated metals 0 2 0 3,092 1,094 18 45 Machinery 0 3 1 1,612 424 22 32Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

66 Computer and electrical equipment 0 0 0 3,429 625 8 395 Motor vehicles 0 3 0 2,380 825 20 143 Other transportation equipment 0 1 0 934 232 0 69 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0 1 0 681 165 3 14 Trade 0 147 0 15,278 1,552 0 4,795 Air transportation 0 0 0 76 4 0 10,248 Truck transportation 0 0 0 551 124 0 11,764 Other transportation 0 1,156 0 2,161 806 0 11,112 Information 0 97 0 2,774 1,262 0 1068 Finance and insurance 0 7 0 1,713 229 0 485 Real estate and rental 0 33 1 14,586 852 0 1,956 Business services 0 186 1 6,567 1,238 0 11,618 Other services 0 292 1 26,481 5,156 0 3,498 Government excluding electricity 0 2,504 3 10,453 9,408 0 30,002 C 0 0 14 107,106 38,490 0 68,191 I 0 –2,338 –498 0 0 0 –2,228 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 626 853 938 427 39 0 9,430 M –75,477 –17,426 –647 –1,201 0 0 –23,560 Total commodity 51,295 35,996 19,172 250,078 92,965 15,558 177,511 Total domestic consumption 126,146 52,569 18,881 250,852 92,926 15,558 191,641

Table A3a. Fuel Inputs from the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 2002

Sector Coal (1,000 short tons) Residual fuel oil (1,000 bbl) Distillate fuel oil (1,000 bbl) Natural gas (billion cu. ft.) LPG and NGL (1,000 bbl) Electricity (million

kWh) Food 9,066 2,399 3,430 605 1,568 75,160 Textile 1,005 925 342 100 662 30,146 Apparel 0 71 291 20 34 4,304 Wood and furniture 0 155 1,811 80 1,583 28,047 Pulp mills 279 1,490 806 23 26 1,579 Paper mills 13,207 8,164 704 216 389 34,005 Paperboard mills 3,759 5,392 661 183 128 16,369 Other papers 167 891 167 113 1,370 28,264 Petroleum 569 3,995 2,821 854 6,106 37,186 Petrochemical mfg. 1,115 506 41 167 695 11,938 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 851 304 351 67 46 25,904 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 7,135 2,108 341 479 4,354 27,521 Plastics material and resin mfg. 1,198 87 251 339 125 21,495Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

67 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 463 11 27 29 23 4,956 Fertilizer manufacturing 33 182 165 202 4 4,521 Other chemical and plastics 3,507 4,464 1,569 476 4,477 109,950 Glass container manufacturing 0 0 13 51 52 3,932 Cement manufacturing 10,633 106 967 21 17 12,471 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 2,958 46 210 7 8 1,353 Mineral wool manufacturing 0 0 260 34 47 3,750 Other nonmetallic minera l 336 307 3,916 297 705 19,887 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 1,824 96 1,776 384 39 57,470 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 0 0 203 127 145 56,673 Ferrous metal foundries 49 0 87 27 105 8,211 Nonferrous metal foundries 0 0 12 30 82 3,247 Other primary metals 323 46 482 84 438 18,901 Fabricated metals 35 0 959 204 965 47,123 Machinery 51 7 371 80 664 24,563 Computer and electrical equipment 20 159 279 114 419 52,253 Motor vehicles 0 990 552 197 1,090 50,508 Other transportation equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0 36 71 31 183 10,374 Total Manufacturing 58,583 26,679 12,209 3,477 17,113 35,1395

Note: These are numbers for the combusted fuel s, not all-purpose or consumed fuels.

Table A3b. Fuel Inputs Derived from IO Dollar Values, 2002

Sector Coal (1,000 tons) Crude oil (1,000 bbl) NGL (1,000 bbl) Petroleum (1,000 bbl) Natural gas (billion cu. ft.) Food 17,539 0 0 27,065 858 Textile 1655 0 0 2,226 109 Apparel 91 0 0 725 68 Wood and furniture 223 0 0 8,658 110 Pulp mills 908 0 0 766 31 Paper mills 7,369 0 0 10,631 256 Paperboard mills 5,924 4 0 5,077 206 Other papers 1,849 0 0 11,834 123 Petroleum 6,153 424,000 4,252 0 783 Petrochemical mfg. 1,113 282 0 19,145 193 Other basic inorganic chemical 320 288 0 2,322 56Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

68 mfg. Other basic organic chemical mfg. 2,123 1,011 0 18,733 373 Plastics material and resin mfg. 850 213 0 1,451 101 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 143 35 0 7,683 19 Fertilizer manufacturing 337 82 0 11,129 129 Other chemical and plastics 3,071 497 0 78,201 350 Glass container manufacturing 1,741 0 0 804 39 Cement manufacturing 3,870 0 0 1,275 86 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 2,957 0 0 948 66 Mineral wool manufacturing 1,199 0 0 463 26 Other nonmetallic minera l 8,293 0 0 3,961 184 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 73,936 0 0 1,982 232 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 3,938 0 0 835 85 Ferrous metal foundries 1,513 0 0 206 34 Nonferrous metal foundries 1,107 0 0 333 25 Other primary metals 2,352 0 0 3,749 53 Fabricated metals 143 0 0 10,391 246 Machinery 205 0 0 11,812 92 Computer and electrical equipment 103 0 0 14,865 138 Motor vehicles 479 0 0 3,757 191 Other transportation equipment 143 0 0 1,545 54 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0 0 0 3,369 39 Total manufacturing 46,597 425,914 4,252 127,445 3,415

Table A4. Total Consumption and Combusted Fuel: Coal (million short tons)

Sector Total consumption Combusted
Farms 0.1 0.1 Forestry, fishing, etc. 0.0 0.0 Oil mining 0.1 0.1 Gas mining 0.1 0.1 Coal mining 0.0 0.0 Other mining activities 0.2 0.2 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 977.5 977.5 Gas utilities 0.0 0.0 Construction 0.0 0.0 Food 9.1 9.1 Textile 1.0 1.0 Apparel 0.0 0.0Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

69 Wood and furniture 0.0 0.0 Pulp mills 0.3 0.3 Paper mills 13.2 13.2 Paperboard mills 3.8 3.8 Other papers 0.2 0.2 Refining–LPG 1.0 1.0 Refining–other 11.6 11.6 Petrochemical mfg. 1.1 1.1 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 0.9 0.9 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 7.1 7.1 Plastics material and resin mfg. 1.2 1.2 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 0.5 0.5 Fertilizer manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other chemical and plastics 3.5 3.5 Glass container manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Cement manufacturing 10.6 10.6 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 3.0 3.0 Mineral wool manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other nonmetallic mineral 0.3 0.3 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 19.0 19.0 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 0.0 0.0 Ferrous metal foundries 0.2 0.2 Nonferrous metal foundries 0.0 0.0 Other primary metals 0.6 0.6 Fabricated metals 0.0 0.0 Machinery 0.1 0.1 Computer and electrical equipment 0.0 0.0 Motor vehicles 0.0 0.0 Other transportation equipment 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Trade 0.0 0.0 Air transportation 0.0 0.0 Truck transportation 0.0 0.0 Other transportation 0.0 0.0 Information 0.0 0.0 Finance and insurance 0.0 0.0 Real estate and rental 0.1 0.1 Business services 0.1 0.1 Other services 0.0 0.0 Government excluding electricity 0.1 0.1Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

70 Table A5. Total Consumption and Combusted Fuel: Crude Oil (million bbl)

Sector Total consumption Combusted
Farms 0.0 0.0 Forestry, fishing, etc. 0.0 0.0 Oil mining 0.0 0.0 Gas mining 0.0 0.0 Coal mining 0.0 0.0 Other mining activities 0.0 0.0 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 0.0 0.0 Gas utilities 0.0 0.0 Construction 0.0 0.0 Food 0.0 0.0 Textile 0.0 0.0 Apparel 0.0 0.0 Wood and furniture 0.0 0.0 Pulp mills 0.0 0.0 Paper mills 0.0 0.0 Paperboard mills 0.0 0.0 Other papers 0.0 0.0 Refining–LPG 597.9 40.2 Refining–other 4,829.4 325.1 Petrochemical mfg. 2.2 2.2 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 0.2 0.2 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 2.1 2.1 Plastics material and resin mfg. 1.4 1.4 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 0.0 0.0 Fertilizer manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other chemical and plastics 0.1 0.1 Glass container manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Cement manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 0.0 0.0 Mineral wool manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other nonmetallic mineral 0.0 0.0 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 0.0 0.0 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 0.0 0.0 Ferrous metal foundries 0.0 0.0 Nonferrous metal foundries 0.0 0.0 Other primary metals 0.0 0.0 Fabricated metals 0.0 0.0 Machinery 0.0 0.0 Computer and electrical equipment 0.0 0.0 Motor vehicles 0.0 0.0Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

71 Table A6. Total Consumption and Combusted Fuel: Refining–LPG (million bbl)

Sector Total consumption Combusted
Farms 0.0 0.0 Forestry, fishing, etc. 0.0 0.0 Oil mining 0.0 0.0 Gas mining 0.0 0.0 Coal mining 0.0 0.0 Other mining activities 0.0 0.0 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 0.0 0.0 Gas utilities 0.0 0.0 Construction 0.0 0.0 Food 1.6 1.4 Textile 0.7 0.6 Apparel 0.0 0.0 Wood and furniture 1.6 1.5 Pulp mills 0.0 0.0 Paper mills 0.4 0.4 Paperboard mills 0.1 0.1 Other papers 1.4 1.3 Refining–LPG 0.0 0.0 Refining–other 6.5 6.0 Petrochemical mfg. 260.0 156.5 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 3.0 0.8 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 204.0 32.2 Plastics material and resin mfg. 362.0 10.0 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 0.0 0.0 Other transportation equipment 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Trade 0.0 0.0 Air transportation 0.0 0.0 Truck transportation 0.0 0.0 Other transportation 0.0 0.0 Information 0.0 0.0 Finance and insurance 0.0 0.0 Real estate and rental 0.0 0.0 Business services 0.0 0.0 Other services 0.0 0.0 Government excluding electricity 0.0 0.0Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

72 Fertilizer manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other chemical and plastics 12.0 5.1 Glass container manufacturing 0.1 0.0 Cement manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 0.0 0.0 Mineral wool manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Other nonmetallic mineral 0.7 0.6 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 0.0 0.0 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 0.1 0.1 Ferrous metal foundries 0.4 0.2 Nonferrous metal foundries 0.1 0.1 Other primary metals 0.8 0.7 Fabricated metals 1.0 0.9 Machinery 1.2 1.1 Computer and electrical equipment 0.4 0.4 Motor vehicles 1.1 0.9 Other transportation equipment 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.2 0.2 Trade 0.0 0.0 Air transportation 0.0 0.0 Truck transportation 0.0 0.0 Other transportation 0.0 0.0 Information 0.0 0.0 Finance and insurance 0.0 0.0 Real estate and rental 0.0 0.0 Business services 0.0 0.0 Other services 0.0 0.0 Government excluding electricity 0.0 0.0Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

73 Table A7. Total Consumption and Combusted Fuel: Refining–Others (million bbl)

Sector Total consumption Combusted
Farms 130.1 119.9 Forestry, fishing, etc. 19.6 18.1 Oil mining 9.5 8.7 Gas mining 6.4 5.9 Coal mining 5.6 5.2 Other mining activities 24.4 22.4 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 99.2 91.4 Gas utilities 2.4 2.2 Construction 726.6 669.2 Food 23.1 21.2 Textile 3.9 3.5 Apparel 0.4 0.3 Wood and furniture 2.4 2.2 Pulp mills 2.3 2.1 Paper mills 8.9 8.2 Paperboard mills 6.1 5.6 Other papers 1.1 1.0 Refining–LPG 0.0 0.0 Refining–other 0.0 0.0 Petrochemical mfg. 12.1 7.3 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 3.4 0.9 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 69.5 11.0 Plastics material and resin mfg. 8.3 0.2 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 0.9 0.8 Fertilizer manufacturing 0.7 0.6 Other chemical and plastics 35.8 15.4 Glass container manufacturing 0.0 0.0 Cement manufacturing 17.5 16.1 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 4.7 4.4 Mineral wool manufacturing 0.3 0.2 Other nonmetallic mineral 7.4 6.8 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 6.2 1.9 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 24.9 22.9 Ferrous metal foundries 0.6 0.3 Nonferrous metal foundries 0.0 0.0 Other primary metals 2.3 2.2Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

74 Table A8. Total Consumption and Combusted Fuel: Natural Gas (billion cu. ft.)
Sector Total consumption Combusted
Farms 58.0 58.0 Forestry, fishing, etc. 1.4 1.4 Oil mining 71.7 71.7 Gas mining 48.3 48.3 Coal mining 36.3 36.3 Other mining activities 151.1 151.1 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 5,676.8 5,676.8 Gas utilities 0.0 0.0 Construction 123.4 123.4 Food 612.0 605.0 Textile 101.0 100.0 Apparel 20.0 20.0 Wood and furniture 80.0 80.0 Pulp mills 23.0 23.0 Paper mills 216.0 216.0 Paperboard mills 183.0 183.0 Other papers 113.0 113.0 Refining–LPG 94.1 94.1 Refining–other 759.9 759.9 Petrochemical mfg. 204.0 168.0 Fabricated metals 1.5 1.4 Machinery 1.1 1.0 Computer and electrical equipment 13.0 12.0 Motor vehicles 4.7 3.8 Other transportation equipment 2.3 2.1 Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.5 0.4 Trade 158.0 145.5 Air transportation 337.7 311.0 Truck transportation 387.6 357.0 Other transportation 366.1 337.2 Information 35.2 32.4 Finance and insurance 16.0 14.7 Real estate and rental 64.4 59.3 Business services 382.8 352.6 Other services 115.3 106.1 Government excluding electricity 988.5 910.4Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

75 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 74.5 66.5 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 643.0 479.0 Plastics material and resin mfg. 347.0 291.2 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 57.0 55.2 Fertilizer manufacturing 501.0 203.0 Other chemical and plastics 513.0 473.0 Glass container manufacturing 51.0 51.0 Cement manufacturing 21.0 21.0 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 7.0 7.0 Mineral wool manufacturing 35.0 34.0 Other nonmetallic mineral 297.0 297.0 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 413.0 383.5 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 132.0 127.0 Ferrous metal foundries 27.0 26.9 Nonferrous metal foundries 30.0 30.0 Other primary metals 84.0 84.0 Fabricated metals 204.0 204.0 Machinery 80.0 80.0 Computer and electrical equipment 116.0 114.0 Motor vehicles 154.5 154.1 Other transportation equipment 43.5 43.5 Miscellaneous manufacturing 31.0 31.0 Trade 349.7 349.7 Air transportation 0.8 0.8 Truck transportation 23.0 23.0 Other transportation 634.0 634.0 Information 275.0 275.0 Finance and insurance 45.5 45.5 Real estate and rental 172.2 172.2 Business services 307.7 307.7 Other services 1,079.7 1,079.7 Government excluding electricity 2,795.9 2,795.9

Table A9. Consumption of Electricity (million kWh)

Sector Electricity consumption Farms 41,080 Forestry, fishing, etc. 926 Oil mining 12,391 Gas mining 8,345 Coal mining 5,774 Other mining activities 20,975 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 0Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

76 Gas utilities 430 Construction 44,720 Food 75,160 Textile 30,146 Apparel 4,304 Wood and furniture 28,047 Pulp mills 1,579 Paper mills 34,005 Paperboard mills 16,369 Other papers 28,264 Refining–LPG 4,096 Refining–other 33,090 Petrochemical mfg. 11,938 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 25,904 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 27,521 Plastics material and resin mfg. 18,559 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 2,936 Fertilizer manufacturing 4,521 Other chemical and plastics 109,950 Glass container manufacturing 3,932 Cement manufacturing 12,471 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 1,353 Mineral wool manufacturing 3,750 Other nonmetallic mineral 19,887 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 57,470 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 56,673 Ferrous metal foundries 8,211 Nonferrous metal foundries 3,247 Other primary metals 18,901 Fabricated metals 47,123 Machinery 24,563 Computer and electrical equipment 52,253 Motor vehicles 36,269 Other transportation equipment 14,239 Miscellaneous manufacturing 10,374 Trade 232,839 Air transportation 1,157 Truck transportation 8,390 Other transportation 32,927 Information 42,277 Finance and insurance 26,102 Real estate and rental 222,291 Business services 100,087 Other services 403,573 Government excluding electricity 159,306Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

77 Table A10. CO 2 Emissions from Total and Direct Combustion of Fossil Fuels (metric tons)

Sector Total combustion Direct combustion Combustion due to electricity Farms 76,342,617 51,021,942 25,320,676 Forestry, fishing, etc. 7,818,166 7,247,670 570,496 Oil mining 15,199,727 7,562,082 7,637,645 Gas mining 10,236,725 5,092,918 5,143,807 Coal mining 7,605,875 4,046,747 3,559,127 Other mining activities 30,464,207 17,535,745 12,928,461 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 2,244,924,377 2,244,924,377 0 Gas utilities 1,129,501 864,717 264,784 Construction 299,969,872 272,405,637 27,564,235 Food 105,811,684 59,484,956 46,326,728 Textile 27,560,253 8, 979,019 18,581,234 Apparel 3,886,867 1,233,990 2,652,877 Wood and furniture 22,887,813 5,600,349 17,287,463 Pulp mills 3,617,342 2,644,086 973,256 Paper mills 61,749,898 40,7 90,074 20,959,824 Paperboard mills 29,733,835 19,644, 396 10,089,439 Other papers 24,620,526 7,199,310 17,421,217 Refining–LPG 26,924,219 24,399,365 2,524,853 Refining–other 225,505,256 205,109,597 20,395,659 Petrochemical mfg. 60,723,541 53,365,278 7,358,263 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 21,917,603 5,951,031 15,966,572 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 70,150,790 53,187,334 16,963,456 Plastics material and resin mfg. 32,794,581 21,355,304 11,439,277 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 6,060,475 4,250,776 1,809,699 Fertilizer manufacturing 14,144, 832 11,358,2 02 2,786,630 Other chemical and plastics 107,856,621 40,086,323 67,770,298 Glass container manufacturing 5,229,726 2,806,140 2,423,586 Cement manufacturing 35,867,253 28,180,443 7,686,810 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 8,695,133 7,861,178 833,955 Mineral wool manufacturing 4,276,876 1,965,471 2,311,405 Other nonmetallic mineral 32,0 17,530 19,759,6 85 12,257,845 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 94,066,181 58,643,123 35,423,058 Alumina refining, pri aluminum 50,999,622 16,067,814 34,931,808 Ferrous metal foundries 7,013,271 1,952,218 5,061,053 Nonferrous metal foundries 3,665,182 1,663,813 2,001,369 Other primary metals 18,339,751 6,689,651 11,650,100 Fabricated metals 40,968,644 11,923,216 29,045,429 Machinery 20,275,004 5,134,991 15,140,014 Computer and electrical equipment 43,299,123 11,091,692 32,207,431 Motor vehicles 32,511,385 10,156,205 22,355,181 Other transportation equipment 11,994,983 3,218,306 8,776,676 Miscellaneous manufacturing 8,296,281 1,902,009 6,394,272Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

78 Trade 220,432,836 76,916,723 143,516,113 Air transportation 124,208,958 123,495,630 713,329 Truck transportation 148,141,226 142,970,008 5,171,218 Other transportation 188,861,573 168,565,943 20,295,630 Information 53,973,358 27,915,133 26,058,225 Finance and insurance 24,419,924 8,331,599 16,088,325 Real estate and rental 170,098,400 33,084,106 137,014,294 Business services 218,603, 298 156,912,035 61, 691,264 Other services 350,013,486 101,261,300 248,752,185 Government excluding electricity 612,819,746 514,627,589 98,192,158

Table A11. Total and Primary CO 2 Emissions Intensity (metric tons/million $)

Sector Total CO 2 intensity Primary CO 2 intensity
Farms 430.5 287.7 Forestry, fishing etc 227.4 210.8 Oil mining 248.8 123.8 Gas mining 248.8 123.8 Coal mining 394.8 210.0 Other mining activities 533.1 306.9 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 8,647.6 8,647.6 Gas utilities 13.7 10.5 Construction 310.2 281.7 Food 224.9 126.5 Textile 461.9 150.5 Apparel 88.2 28.0 Wood and furniture 168.1 41.1 Pulp mills 1,050.2 767.7 Paper mills 1,362.5 900.0 Paperboard mills 1,409.4 931.2 Other papers 142.1 41.5 Refining–LPG 1,280.6 1,160.5 Refining–other 1,327.8 1,207.7 Petrochemical mfg. 4,118.3 3,619.3 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 1,444.1 392.1 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 1,474.5 1,118.0 Plastics material and resin mfg. 731.5 476.3 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 792.0 555.5 Fertilizer manufacturing 1,716.6 1,378.5 Other chemical and plastics 267.6 99.5 Glass container manufacturing 1,197.3 642.5 Cement manufacturing 5,080.7 3,991.8Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

79 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 1,775.0 1,604.7 Mineral wool manufacturing 884.6 406.5 Other nonmetallic mineral 477.7 294.8 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 2,242.7 1,398.1 Alumina refining, primary aluminum 2,717.7 856.2 Ferrous metal foundries 477.1 132.8 Nonferrous metal foundries 321.0 145.7 Other primary metals 645.7 235.5 Fabricated metals 186.8 54.4 Machinery 91.5 23.2 Computer and electrical equipment 119.1 30.5 Motor vehicles 99.7 31.1 Other transportation equipment 89.2 23.9 Miscellaneous manufacturing 72.1 16.5 Trade 119.1 41.6 Air transportation 1,250.7 1,243.5 Truck transportation 760.7 734.2 Other transportation 573.5 511.9 Information 65.5 33.9 Finance and insurance 21.4 7.3 Real estate and rental 88.0 17.1 Business services 127.8 91.7 Other services 147.7 42.7 Government excluding electricity 300.0 251.9Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

80 Appendix B. Adkins–G arbaccio CGE Model
In this Appendix we describe the multisector, multiregion model that is used to simulate the effects of the medium-run and long-run horizons . It is also used to generate the demand elasticities for industry output, j η . The model is described in de tail in Adkins and Garbaccio
(2007) and Adkins (2006), and we onl y discuss the main features here.
The model is based on the GTAP (v6) database and is aggregated to three world regions: the United States, the rest of Annex I, and the rest of the world (Table B1 ). The rest of Annex I comprises the other developed count ries that essentially have had a very different pattern of exports and imports with the U.S. compared with th e rest of the world. In particular, the rest of the world exports oil to the United States.
GTAP identifies 52 industries, many of whic h are in the agriculture group. These are aggregated to 21 industries as shown in Table B2.
The model is a one-period (long-run) mode l where the labor supply is elastic. The production functions are CES nest ed functions; at the top tier the value-added energy bundle is
substitutable with all other inte rmediate inputs. The second tier is a CES function of the valueadded bundle and the energy bundle. Value added is a CES function of capital, labor, and land. The energy bundle is a function of coal mining, gas, petroleum products, and electricity. The main equations of the model are listed in Table B3, with the variable description given in Table B4. The elasticities of substitution are given in Table B5.

Appendix B. Tables

Table B1. Regions in Model

Abbreviation Region USA United States
AN1 Australia Austria Belarus Be lgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom
XRW Rest of the worldResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

81 Table B2. Sectors in Model

Abbreviation No. Sector
AGR 1 Agriculture
COA 2 Coal OIL 3 Oil mining GAS 4 Natural gas
OMN 5 Other minerals FBT 6 Food, beverages, and tobacco
TEX 7 Textiles WAP 8 Wearing apparel and leather goods LUM 9 Wood and paper products PCP 10 Petroleum and coal products CRP 11 Chemicals, rubber, and plastics NMM 12 Other nonmetallic mineral products
MET 13 Ferrous and n onferrous metals FMP 14 Fabricated metal products MVH 15 Motor vehicles and other transport equipment ELE 16 Electronic goods OME 17 Other machinery, equipment, and manufactures ELY 18 Electricity
CNS 19 Construction TRN 20 Transportation services
SER 21 Services

Table B3. Equation for Producer Model



### ( ) 

# ( ) ( ) 

# [ ]

n
r t n
r t n
r t n
r t n
r t

r t r t r t r t

r t r t PVE PN
aa PTC

, , , , , 1 1 1

, , 1

, ,

, , 1 1

σ σ σ σ σ ζ ζ

− − −

⋅ − + ⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= (5)



### ( ) 

# ( ) ( )

, , , , , 1
1 1 1

, ,, , ,

, 1 1 ve ve ve ve ve t r tr tr t r t r tr tr tr tr tr

t r PVE PEN PVC
ee σ σ σ σ σ η η − − − ⎛ ⎞ ⎡ ⎤ = ⋅ ⋅ +− ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠ (6)Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

82 

### ( ) 

# [ ]

v
r t v
r t v
r t f r f r t f

r t r t PF
a PVC

, , , 1 1 1

, , ,

, , 1

σ σ σ δ

− − 

# ∑

⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= (7)



### ( ) 

# [ ]

en
r t en
r t en
r t
t r t r t t

r t r t PX kk PEN

, , , 1 1

5 1

, 5

, , 5

, , 1

σ σ σ κ − − 

# ∑

⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= (8)


# ∑

⋅ = 6 , , 6
, 6
, t r t t r t r t io PX PN (9)

, , , , , , , , ,, , tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr P Q PN NX PEN EN PVC VA ty P Q ⋅ = ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅⋅ (49)


# ( )

r t

r t r t

r t

r t r t Q PVE PTC

aa VE n
r t n
r t

,

, ,

, 1

, , , , 1 1

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ − ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= − σ σ ζ value-added energy bundle (13)



# ( )

r t

r t r

t

r t

r t r t VE VC PVE

ee VA ve
r t ve
r t

,

, ,

, 1

, , , , 1 1

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ − ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= − σ σ η (14)

r t

r t r t

r t

r t r t VE PEN PVE

ee EN ve
r t ve
r t

,

, ,

, 1

, , , , 1

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= − σ σ η (15)

r t

r t r t

r t

r t r t Q PN PTC

aa NX n
r t n
r t

,

, ,

, 1

, , , , 1

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= − σ σ ζ total interim input (16)

r t

r t r

t

r t t

r t r t t EN PX PEN
kk IX en
r t en
r t

,

, 5 ,

, , 5 1

, , , 5 , , 1

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= − σ σ

κ (17)

r t r t t r t t NX io IX

, , , 6
, , 6 ⋅ = Leontief demand for nonenergy (18)

, , 1

,

,, ,, ,

, , 1 v v t r t r

t r f tr f tr tr t r ftr f r PVC DF VA a apf PF σ σ δ − ⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞

= ⋅⋅ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎦ (19)

Table B4. Model Variable Listing

PWE t,s,r World price (seller price FOB)

PE t,r

Exported goods price

PWM t,s,r Buyer price (CIF)

PM t,r

Aggregate imported goods priceResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

83 PX t,r

Composite goods price

PD t,r Domestic goods price

P t,r Average output price

PTC t,r

TCP Sectoral unit cost of production

PVE t,r

Value-added energy composite price

PVC t,r

VC Value-added composite price

PEN t,r

Energy composite price

PN t,r

Intermediate good composite price

PFN f,r

Factor price (net of tax)

PF f,r

Factor price (gross of tax)

PC t,r

Consumer purchase price

CPI r Consumer price index

ERT r Exchange rate

VE t,r

Value-added energy composite good

VA t,r Value-added composite

EN t,r

Energy composite

VC t,r

Sectoral variab le production cost

NX t,r

Composite intermediate good

IX t,k,r Intermediate demand

DF f,t,r Sectoral factor demand

C

t,r

Household consumption

GC t,r

Government consumption

ID t,r Investment demand

SUPY r Household consumption above subsistence level

SX t,r

Composite good supply

DX t,r

Domestic sales of domestically made goodResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

84 X

t,s,r Trade flows

EX t,r Exports

MX t,r

Sectoral imports by region

TRQS r International shipping supply by region

PTR International shipping service price

TRQD t,r International shipping demand by region

TRQ Total internationa l transport supply

HDI r Household disposable income

SAV r Household savings

GREV r Government revenue

TARIFF r Tariff revenue

ETAX r Export tax revenue

PTAX r Output tax revenue

CTAX r Consumption tax revenue

FTAX r Factor tax revenue

HTAX r Household tax revenue

NETINFL r Net capital inflow by country

CO2TAXF t1,r Carbon tax per fuel

CO2TAX r Country carbon tax

CO2TAXR r Country carbon tax revenue

CO2TOT r Total CO 2 emissions by country

GDPR r GDP (final demand)

GDPVA r GDP (value added)

PINDEX r GDP deflator ( numeraire )

Q t,r Sectoral output

FS f,r

Factor endowment by regionResources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

85 INV r Gross investment by region

GSAV r Government savings

GPUR r GSP Government purchases

GTRANS r Net government transfers

Table B5. Elasticities of Substitution

n σ SGN 0.15 all industries

ve σ SVE 0.5 all industries

v σ SGV 0.2(COA, OIL, GAS), 1.1, 1.3(PCP, ELY), 1.4

en σ SEN 0.5 all industries

e σ SGE –2.1, –3.5, –5.6, –7.2

m σ SGM 1.9, 2.1, 2.3(PCP), 2.8(COA, OIL, GAS), 4.0(WAP), 5.2(MVH)Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

86 Table B6. Demand Elasticity for Output

Sectors Elasticity

Farms -0.812 Forestry, fishing etc -0.812 Oil mining -0.296 Gas mining -0.296 Coal mining -0.106 Other mining activities -0.633 Electric Utilities (inc govt enterprises) -0.160 Gas Utilities -0.566 Construction -0.774 Food -0.638 Textile -1.139 Apparel -2.418 Wood & Furniture -0.698 Pulp mills -0.698 Paper mills -0.698 Paperboard mills -0.698 Other papers -0.698 Refining-LPG -0.071 Refining-Other -0.071 Petrochemical mfg -0.987 Other basic inorg. chemical mfg -0.987 Other basic organic chemical mfg -0.987 Plastics material and resin mfg -0.987 Artificial & syn fibers, filaments -0.987 Fertilizer manufacturing -0.987 Other Chemical & Plastics -0.987 Glass container manufacturing -0.827 Cement manufacturing -0.827 Lime and gypsum product mfg -0.827 Mineral wool manufacturing -0.827 Other Nonmetallic mineral -0.827 Iron & steel mills, ferroalloy mfg -0.953 Alumina refining, primary aluminum -0.953 Ferrous metal foundries -0.953 Nonferrous metal foundries -0.953 Other Primary metals -0.953 Fabricated metals -0.505 Machinery -1.662 Computer & Electrical Equip -2.596Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih

87 Motor vehicles -2.485 Other transportation Equip -2.485 Misc manufacturing -1.662 Trade -0.745 Air transportation -0.833 Truck transportation -0.833 Other transportation -0.833 Information -0.745 Finance and Insurance -0.745 Real estate and rental -0.745 Business services -0.745
Other services -0.745 Govt exc. Electricity -0.745