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 Shih 

DISCUSSION 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 detailed sector-level analysis. The assumed policy 

scenario involves a unilateral economy-wide $10/ton CO2 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 through added costs, change input mix, adopt new 

technologies, and reallocate capital. Overall, we find that 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, leakage abroad is considerable in some sectors, 

particularly when reductions in exports are considered. 

Key Words: carbon price, competitiveness, input-output analysis 

JEL Classification Numbers: F14, D 21, D57, D58, H23 
Contents 

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 Different Time Horizons ..................................................... 10

Very Short–Run Horizon Where Quantities Cannot Be Changed.................................... 17 

Short-Run Horizon with Higher Output 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—Short 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.............................................................................................................................. 41
Resources 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 CO2 Emissions and Intensity..................................................................................... 63 

Appendix A. Tables............................................................................................................... 63

Appendix B. Adkins–Garbaccio CGE Model..................................................................... 80

Appendix B. Tables............................................................................................................... 80
Resources 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 mandatory action on climate change, an important 

consideration is the potential for new policies to cause significant declines in some domestic 

industries, with corresponding increases in imports and production elsewhere in the world. This 

is especially the case if the policy is unilateral, without a corresponding 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 (CO2) 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 Shih are visiting scholar, senior fellow, and fellow, 

respectively, at Resources for the Future. 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 affected by a unilateral, economywide 

CO2 pricing policy. It would not only have significant direct impacts on coal, and other domestic 

energy industries, it could adversely affect the competitiveness of a number of large energyintensive, import-sensitive manufacturing industries. Unfortunately, information concerning 

specific industry-level impacts associated with new carbon mitigation policies is quite limited. 

The most common approach to assessing the impact of carbon-control policies is to focus 

on the long-run impacts, after firms have adjusted 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 immediately or costlessly convert to 

more energy-efficient methods. 

From a policy perspective, the path taken to the long-run outcome is extremely important. 

A carbon control policy that ignores these short- and medium-term impacts 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 addresses fairness questions in the initial years may 

not be appropriate in the future. 

We recently examined how a unilateral, economywide CO2 pricing policy would affect a 

large set of industries, taking into account the ways that adjustment costs may change over time. 

To paint a full picture, we employed four different modeling approaches using consistent 

assumptions in order to consider outcomes along four different time scales: 

1. The very short run, where firms cannot adjust 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 result of product or import substitution. 

3. 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 effects 

are considered. 

4. The long run, when capital may be reallocated and replaced with more energy 

efficient technologies. 

Impacts were measured in terms of costs, profits, employment, and trade effects, 

assuming a unilateral $10/ton CO2 price without any offsetting measures regarding permit 

allocation or border adjustments and without any 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, see tables at end of full paper.)

• Measured by the reduction in domestic output, a readily identifiable set of 

industries is at greatest risk of contraction over both the short and long 

terms. Within the manufacturing sector, at a relatively aggregated, two- or threedigit standard industrial classification level, the hardest hit industries are: 

petroleum refining, chemicals and plastics, primary metals, and nonmetallic 

minerals. 

• Although the short-run output reductions are relatively large in these 

industries, they shrink over time as firms adjust inputs and adopt new 

technologies. The industries that continue to bear the impacts are generally the 

same ones affected initially, albeit at reduced levels. When measured in terms of 

reduced profits, the rebound is especially large and, for some industries, virtually 

complete. 

• Focusing on the nearer-term timeframes, where certain simplifying 

assumptions enable us to conduct a more disaggregated analysis, we observe 

that the largest cost increases are concentrated in particular segments of 

these industries. Using a broad definition of costs that includes capital inputs, 

petrochemical manufacturing and cement see very short-run cost increases of 

more than four percent from a modest charge of $10 per ton of CO2, while iron

and steel mills, aluminum, and lime products 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 utilities does not substantially 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 timeframes. 

• In terms of employment, short-term job losses are modeled as proportional 

to those of output. Over the longer term, however, when labor markets are able 
Resources 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, the 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-intensive 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 their 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 exemption from the carbon policy, standards instead of 

market-based policies for some sectors, free allowance 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 Reducing 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_AssessingUSClimatePolicyOptions_IB8.aspx

Modeling Results 

Short-Run Output Effects 

In the short run, producers raise prices to cover the higher unit costs 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 alternative 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 are 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

v

adjusting their purchases to avoid the higher prices for carbon-intensive products and thus 

reducing their demands. The cost-reducing effect of input substitution is generally dominant (see 

Table 6 at end of full paper). Over time, for all but two manufacturing industries (petroleum 

refining and fabricated metals), the cost shock of the carbon tax is reduced, and smaller price 

increases are needed to cover the higher 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 employment 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 capital, the reduction in employment diminishes 

in all cases. In two extreme manufacturing cases, apparel and electrical machinery, the mediumrun employment reductions turn to gains in the long run. That is, the ability to substitute capital 

for the more expensive carbon-intensive inputs in the long run leads 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 for two industries, the most interesting being 

electric utilities, where output falls by 1.4 percent 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. That is, users of fuels substitute capital for fuel over the longer 

term and the demand for coal, oil, and gas 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 the demand for capital. On the other, there is 

substitution from expensive energy to cheaper capital, which increases the demand for capital in 

these sectors. The net effect is negative for all but three manufacturing industries. 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 declining carbon-intensive 

sectors goes to services and, perhaps surprisingly, to the electricity sector. For manufacturing 

industries, only in the food, apparel, and electrical machinery industries are the long-run 

demands for capital slightly higher after a carbon 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 consumption 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

vi

due to a $10/ton CO2 tax, while the last three columns present the contributions of the changes in 

terms of output, imports, and exports. We can see 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 tax. 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 mandatory 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 least two major concerns. The first concern involves 

the risk of damage to the domestic economy, especially to the subset of carbon-intensive 

industries that is particularly vulnerable to domestic carbon pricing policies. Unilateral or nearunilateral policies would exacerbate this risk. The second concern relates directly to the potential 

for emissions leakage, i.e., increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the rest of the world 

in response to the domestic policy. Since climate change is driven by global emissions, the 

environmental benefits of a domestic policy could 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 mitigation policies, or none at all. 

The impact of a CO2 price on domestic industries is 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 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 CO2 pricing policy is 

unprecedented in the history of environmental regulation, as is the range of industries that would 

be affected. By contrast, the debate leading up to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was 

informed by extensive analyses of the likely effects of a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide 

emissions on a single sector, the electric power industry. These analyses were greatly simplified 

by the fact that the policy under consideration targeted a regulated industry that faced almost no 

international competition. A pricing policy for CO2 emissions would not only have more 

significant direct impacts on coal and other domestic energy industries, it could also cause 

adverse business impacts on energy-intensive, import-sensitive manufacturing 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 policies is to estimate 

the long-run cost to consumer welfare after firms 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 short-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 profits. 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 competitiveness issues by providing relatively 

transparent analyses of the impacts of a unilateral, economywide $10/ton CO2 pricing policy on a 

disaggregated set of industrial sectors, taking account of time-relevant 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 prices can rise to reflect the 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 analysis, when capital may 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 requires an estimate of the demand elasticities 

for each industry’s output, that is, how much sales fall when output prices are raised. These 
Resources 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, including the switch to imported varieties of the same product. 

The third time horizon is analyzed by direct application of a relatively 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 for steel depends not only on the price of steel but also on the 

price of plastics, indeed the price of everything in the economy. Higher energy prices raise the 

prices of steel and plastic and directly lower the demand for both. In addition, the lower demand 

for plastic indirectly lowers the chemical industry’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 industry. Therefore, when 

sales fall due to higher costs being 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 the change in the economywide return to labor 

versus capital. The focus is on the long-run effects of GHG policies on consumption patterns, 

that is, households and other components of final demand switching to less energy-intensive 

products. This switch in final demand changes the structure of production and total energy 

consumption, but the long-run framework implies that returns to capital are equalized across 

industries. We should note that the “long run” may be defined in a variety of ways. Our 

definition is the simplest concept 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 level which allows for 21 sectors across the U.S. 

economy, including 13 manufacturing industries. For the first two modeling frameworks 

sufficient data are available to subdivide a number of the categories into finer three-digit 

groupings, a total of 52 industrial sectors. Estimates of carbon intensity are made for the year 

2002, the most recent year of the benchmark input–output (IO) table, using industry-specific 

information on output, intermediate input, fossil fuel use, and emissions for that year. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

4

The focus is on a sequence of transparent steps that allows readers to understand the 

analysis in a way not conveyed by the typical black 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 industries by cost impacts should be useful for the 

policy challenge of assessing the need for, and nature of, any special considerations that might 

accompany a broad-based carbon-pricing mechanism. 

The next section reviews a number of previous studies that have examined 

competitiveness issues at a detailed, industry-specific 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 more detailed description of the data is presented 

in Appendix A. Section V presents the principal results, and Section VI compares the results 

across multiple time horizons along several different dimensions. Section VII provides crossmodel comparisons, and Section VIII offers some overall conclusions. 

II. Other Studies on Detailed Industry Impacts 

The literature on industry impacts of carbon policies has grown considerably over the last 

several years, including both policy-oriented 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 competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector. 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. manufacturing during the period 1970–2002 concurrent with 

the 80 percent increase in real output during that period. Overall, the authors conclude that 

technological progress accounts for well over half of the observed pollution 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 flows 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 issues. Overall, they argue that the impacts are relatively 

modest; those impacts that do exist are concentrated in a small number of industries, including steel, copper, 

aluminum, cement, glass, paper, 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 important for the future. Other research, based on the 

variation in environmental stringency across individual 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 actual 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 than on direct empirical observation of changes 

in industrial activity associated with the imposition of carbon or energy prices. The principal 

exception we are aware of is recent econometric work by Aldy and Pizer (2008) involving a 

cross-section time-series analysis of the competitiveness impacts associated with U.S. electricity 

prices over a 20-year period.3 They estimate industry-specific price elasticities and calculate the 

likely competitiveness impacts of a unilateral U.S. carbon price of $15/ton of CO2. The Aldy 

Pizer results are roughly comparable to our short and medium term cases. The remainder of this 

section reviews recent modeling analyses of carbon price impacts focusing on the four different 

time horizons considered. 

Very Short–Run Time Horizon 

Using IO data from four-digit U.S. manufacturing industries, Morgenstern 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 assumes that output prices cannot be changed, is 

based on combustion emissions from all sources, including those associated with the purchase of 

electricity and other domestically produced intermediate inputs. Process emissions associated 

with cement production and other industrial processes are not included. Also ignored are changes 

in sales and output due to firms passing on the higher carbon costs, and 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 categories show larger effects. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

6

effects such as higher natural gas prices due to fuel switching from coal, the latter creating 

additional competitiveness concerns for industries that use natural gas. Overall, Morgenstern et 

al. (2004) find a diverse pattern of impacts across the 361 individual manufacturing industries 

examined, with only a few of them bearing disproportionately 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 output prices in response to higher carbon costs. 

Unlike the U.S. papers, however, they include process emissions in the cement and other relevant 

industries but exclude purchase of intermediate inputs other than electricity. Their analysis 

develops industry-specific information on international 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 Commission, and the second by Reinaud (2005) for the 

International Energy Agency (IEA). These studies focus on representative subsectors within 

particular energy-intensive manufacturing 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 calculation of the cost increases that would 

arise from a particular CO2 charge, including emissions-related cost increases from the 

combustion of fossil energy and from process emissions, 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 intermediate inputs other than electricity are 

excluded, as are the general equilibrium effects from higher natural gas prices. 

The McKinsey study makes explicit assumptions 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, assuming no change in demand for the product (or 

facility output) in response to higher prices. Importantly, the analysis also assumes that firms will 

attempt to pass through all cost increases associated with the climate policy, regardless of any 

free allocation. In contrast, the Reinaud analysis calculates 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 suggest that initial cost impacts, before 

adjustment for free allowance allocation or cost pass-through, are substantial in some cases and 

vary widely across industry subsectors. This variation reflects differences in energy intensity 

and, particularly in the case of cement, differences in process emissions. Both studies estimate 

the largest initial cost impacts in basic oxygen furnace (BOF) steel, aluminum, and cement, with 

relatively smaller impacts in electric arc furnace (EAF) steel. 

Assuming that freely allocated allowances are 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 percent of their direct emissions. According to 

McKinsey, the net cost burden after free allocation for BOF steel and cement, for example, falls 

by 85–90 percent, an amount that reflects the substantial 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 passes on the full opportunity cost of carbon allowances. To 

calculate costs associated with electricity consumption, the McKinsey study assumes 0.41 tons of CO2 emissions per 

megawatt-hour; the Reinaud study uses the 2001 average CO2 intensity of grid-supplied electricity. Neither study 

considers how facilities might respond to a carbon price 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 EAF steel, see a smaller 

decline (roughly 10 percent) in the net cost burden under a 95 percent free allocation based only 

on direct emissions.6 

Medium- and Long-Run Analyses Based on CGE Analyses 

Unlike the partial equilibrium analyses covering the very short and the short run horizons, 

the medium and long run analyses rely on computable 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 sectors (Fischer and Morgenstern 2006). We are 

aware of only two such models used for carbon policy analysis that include extensive industry 

detail: the domestic-oriented Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model (IGEM) and the 

international-oriented Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). We report here on recent analyses 

using these models. 

IGEM 

IGEM is a dynamic model of the U.S. economy that describes economic growth due to 

capital accumulation, technical change, and population growth. Capital accumulation arises from 

savings of a household modeled with “perfect foresight.” The production or supply side of the 

model identifies a total of 35 industries, of which 21 are manufacturing and 5 are energy related. 

Coal, refined oil, gas, and electricity are separately identified energy inputs. Domestic output is 

supplemented by imports from the rest of the world to form the total supply of each commodity. 

The key model parameters governing the behavior of producers and consumers are 

econometrically estimated. In a recent paper, Jorgenson et al. (2007) revised previous analyses 

by Ho and Jorgenson (1994) and Jorgenson and Wilcoxen (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 levels, 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 cheaper materials, labor, and capital, along with priceinduced technical change, help to reduce the adverse impacts. 

 

6 This reflects the EU-ETS design, which does not address cost increases arising from higher electricity prices 

(where higher electricity prices reflect the indirect emissions associated with power generation). 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

9

With the exception of agriculture, food, and 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 percent in their central case), other energy-related 

industries, including petroleum refining, 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; stone, clay, and glass; fabricated metal products; nonelectrical 

machinery; motor vehicles; chemicals and allied products; rubber and plastic 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 here do not project energy 

use into the distant future or allow for technological change, they do allow for capital 

reallocation. As such, the results should be considered 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 policies. They examine four different allocation mechanisms: 

auction, grandfathering, output-based allocation tied to emissions, and output-based allocation 

tied to value added. They report impacts on 18 nonenergy 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. Overall, output declines consistently across the 

industries examined, except the food products and service sectors, for all the alternative 

allocation mechanisms. Coal mining experiences the largest declines, on the order of 16 percent. 

Other energy-related industries, including electricity, 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. The most hard-hit manufacturing industries are 

chemicals and iron and steel, at about one percent each. All other manufacturing industries report 

output declines that are generally 0.5 percent or less. Interestingly, the Fischer and Fox (2007) 

analysis reports total emissions leakage of about 12 to 15 percent of the overall reduction in U.S. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

10

emissions. Although not explicitly reported in their paper, this implies dramatically higher 

industry-specific leakage rates for some industries. For example, the leakage rate for the energy 

intensive industries is on the order of 40-45 percent.7

Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) developed another model based on the GTAP database that 

covers 21 sectors and 24 regions of the world. It considers how carbon taxes interact with trade 

liberalization and revenue recycling. Trade liberalization raises world GDP slightly but also 

raises world carbon emissions, and the authors carry out a simulation where the tariff cuts are 

accompanied by carbon taxes that keep CO2 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 Garbaccio also consider a case where Annex I 

countries impose a carbon tax to reduce their CO2 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 

CO2 emissions of 2 percent, reflecting 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 simplifications made. Readers more interested in the 

results may skip to Section V. 

We adopt fairly standard IO conventions for 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 Lj p and K

j p denote the price 

of labor and capital inputs. 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 X j is the quantity of output and ij u is the intermediate input of commodity i into sector j

purchased at prices Q

i p . Lj and Kj are the labor and capital inputs. We denote the values of 

output and input by a v superscript: v X X j jj = p X and v Q

ij i ij u pu = . 

Both the detailed industry accounts and IO tables distinguish between industries and 

commodities; they are classified by using the same names and reference numbers.9 The 

electricity commodity, for example, is produced by the electric power generation industry, 

federal electric utilities, and state and local (S&L) government electric utilities. Each industry 

uses various intermediate commodity inputs, uij. A matrix whose jth 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 ( ,... )' X = X Xn . 

For calculations of emissions, we need to express emissions in terms of tons of CO2

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) ; L K j j

j j

j j

L K

b b

X X = =

 

9 For example, the accommodation industry produces an "accommodation" commodity and a “food service” 

commodity. On the other side, each commodity may be produced by several industries; for example, the “food 

service” commodity is produced by the accommodation industry and the food service industry. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

12

In our analysis of the very short run we assume that the input mix cannot be changed, that 

is, the activity matrix B is not affected by carbon control policies. 

Total final demand, Ei, is the demand for domestic commodity i by the final users—

consumption, investment, government, and net 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 E = c + v + g + e − i ; 1 ( ,... )' E EE = n

Let Qi denote the supply of domestic commodity i. The supply–demand balance in 

quantity terms is written as: 

(6) = ∑ + = j

Qi uij Ei i 1 ; [ ] ,2,....m Q Q = i

In vector form this becomes: 

(6a) QU E X E = += + ι B

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

Since each commodity may be produced by a few industries, we use the “Make” or “Supply” 

matrix: 

(7) [ ] v v V = Vji

where v Vji 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 = V ι ; the vector of commodity output is the column 

sum, ' v v Q = V ι . Let the share of commodity i produced by industry j be denoted by dji. Then the 

relation between industry output and commodity supply is given by: 

(8) v v X = DQ ; 1 [ ] [ ( )] v v

ji d diag Q − D V = =
Resources 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 [see, 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 must produce additional steel, glass, electricity, and other 

necessary materials that the motor vehicle industry 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 dollar of motor vehicles. The commodity total requirements 

vector (i.e., the vector of additional output needed for one unit of i) is: 

(11) 1 ( ) i Q i

− Δ =−I ΒD i

where i i is a vector with a one in the ith 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 CO2 emissions due to one 

more unit of good i since the vector i ΔQ gives us the additional coal, crude oil, and gas used. 

Let θ f be the CO2 content per unit of fuel f, where the units are the base year dollars of 

fuel f. For example, 106923 θcoal = metric tons of CO2 per million dollars of coal in 2002. This is 

derived from the energy content per unit fuel (e.g., BTUs per ton of coal), the carbon content per 

BTU, and the average price per unit 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 ΔQ by their respective carbon 

content coefficients. Let ΔCi 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) θ = θ θ coal oil is the vector of carbon coefficients with nonzero entries only for 

the primary fuels. Although the i ΔQ vector also gives us the additional electricity and additional 

refined petroleum products used, we do not include them in the calculation since these are 

secondary products. It is the production, not the use, of electricity that generates CO2, and that is 

captured by the coal, oil, and gas elements. Similarly, gasoline, kerosene, and so forth are 

captured at the crude oil stage. 

However, oil and gas are used as feedstock in the production of chemicals and other 

noncombusted products, that is, their carbon is not released in the typical fashion. If the carbon 

policy exempts such nonfuel use then the formulas should reflect that. In this case we estimate 

carbon emissions from the combustion of refined petroleum products and gas utilities instead of 

just the primary commodities from coal, oil mining, 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 (ufj) multiplied by a 

combustion ratio, φ fj . National emissions also include those 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 φiu is the Hadamard product and ι is a vector of ones. The vector of the change in direct 

and indirect CO2 emissions due to one more unit of final demand is obtained by substituting in 

(11): 

(16) 

'

1

1 ' '[ ( ) ]

C

C θ φ −

⎡ ⎤ Δ

⎢ ⎥ Δ= = − + ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦

# iBD I BD 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

Δ= Δ + C b dQ ∑∑ ∑ θ φ θ

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 refined 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 construction 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 

CO2 tax at rate $ C

t /ton will result in the cost of producing i rising by C

i t CΔ . Denote this by: 

(18) Q C pi i Δ =Δ t C

For nonfuel commodities, say for i = aluminum, then Q

aluminum Δp 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 Δp

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 total 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 prices 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 costs per dollar of output j is: 

(20) VS Q

j i ij ij

i

Δ =Δ COST p B ∑ φ

We allow for the option that the carbon tax 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 effect into the contribution of primary fuels, 

electricity, and all other intermediate inputs. To do this we compute the carbon contributions of 

the primary fuels and electricity from the energy consumption data given in Table A2 of 

Appendix A. That is, we have, DC θ j = CO2 per dollar of industry output due to the direct 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

17

combustion (DC) of fossil fuels, and EL θ j = CO2 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 Δ =Δ +Δ +Δ COST COST COST COST jj jj

 DC C DC Δ = COST t j j θ

 EL C EL Δ = COST t j j θ

We are interested in the total effect on an industry and need to distinguish between 

quantities and values, sales revenues and profits. The gross sales revenue is X P Xj j , and net sales 

revenue is the gross minus “taxes on production” (sales tax). Denoting the tax rate by X

j t , net 

sales revenue for industry j is: 

(21) sales revenue = 1

X

XO j j

j j X

j

P X

P X

t = +

where XO Pj denotes the revenue received per unit of output by the producer, that is, the “seller’s 

price.” Let π j 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

π =− − p X pBX pL ∑

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 prices, that is, there are no changes in the quantity 

of output or inputs. This is best regarded as a very short–run, 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 output price is fixed, 

the change in profits is simply the per dollar change 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 tax results in higher input prices, Q

i p , while at the same time 

assuming that output prices, XO

j p , are unchanged for all industries. 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 representation of the maximum impact on profits from 

the higher costs. This is a simple partial equilibrium representation, ignoring the fact that input 

commodity i is some other industry’s output. 

The percentage change in very short–run profits is simply the weighted share of the 

percentage change in input prices: 

(24) 

Q

VS VS i ij ij j Q

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 customers react by switching to substitute 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 η j

percent less. That is, the percent change in sales and output due to an increase in price to cover 

the higher cost VS ΔCOSTj is: 

(27) 

X

j j VS

j jj X

j j

dX dp COST

X p

= =Δ η η

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 than capital input may change in 

proportion to the reduction in output, but not due to price-induced factor substitution. Let j dX

denote the change in the quantity of output produced. 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

L L j

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 η j , which is 

estimated from a model simulation where substitution 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 expensive carbon-intensive ones. The customers are, 

however, simply other producers. We frame the short-run effect in this manner to show a partial 

equilibrium effect in the simplest way possible. This framework addresses the issue of passthrough, that is, how much producers can pass on their higher costs in the short run. It allows a 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

20

generous estimate of the damage to sales due to price changes and, correspondingly, a generous 

estimate of the impact on profits. 

In this short-run case we assume that producers raise the output price 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 higher 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 τ θ = t p ; 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 refined 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

X XO j

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 into 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

XO X Q Q j jj j

j j j i ij j i ij j j X X

i i j j

X

L L j

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 profits in sales revenue is denoted by α Kj , and the value 

share of labor and intermediate inputs are α Lj and αij , respectively. Substituting (30) into (31), 

the percentage change in gross profits may be expressed as: 

(33) 

() ()

( )

1 ( ) [ ](

SR XO XO XO

j j j jj j j j j XO C Q Q C

SR XO XO j j i ij i ij j j

i i jj j jj j j

XO

LL C j j

jj j j XO

j j

XO XO Q XO

j j j ij ij Lj j C i

XO XO Q XO j jj

Kj Kj Kj Kj Kj i i 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

π ππ 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

XO j ij Lj ij Lj Q

Kj Kj Kj i ii j i

XO Q

j j Kj ij C i

XO Q j j

Kj Kj i 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 given 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 industries, there is also another term, C η j j 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 fuels 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 fuel switching toward lower-carbon fuels, or using 

less energy-intensive intermediate inputs, or substituting labor for energy. In this scenario, which 
Resources 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 changes in variable input use by using a three-region 

general equilibrium model developed by Adkins and Garbaccio (2007). 

Long-Run Horizon When Capital May Be Reallocated 

Over time we may see more changes in production technology than changes in the mix of 

intermediate inputs, for example, the use of more capital-intensive, 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 Construction and Simulation Model 

Data 

To obtain accurate estimates of the industry-specific burdens of a CO2 pricing policy, it is 

essential to calculate the carbon usage of each industry, including both direct combustion and the 

purchase of electricity and other intermediate inputs. Thus, two types of information are 

required: IO data on the interindustry 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 NAICS, 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, providing the interindustry flows for 426 sectors, plus information on 

consumption, government, exports, and imports. Development of the industry-specific CO2 use 

involves linking this highly disaggregated 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 enterprises into government electric utilities and other 

government enterprises. We had hoped to explicitly identify all the high energy–cost industries 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

23

in the set of IO industries; however, the energy data available restricted us to a smaller group. 

The final list of 52 industries consists of (a) six-digit NAICS industries that have high energy 

costs and have the energy quantity data available; (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 manufacturing 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 nonfuel use of various energy 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 Appendix A. Fossil fuel consumption for the electric 

utility industry is from the Annual Energy Review (AER 2006). Energy use for agriculture is 

provided by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). Energy use for the other industries is inferred from the value data. 

The methodology assumes that all buyers pay the same price for a ton of coal, a kilowatthour of electricity, or a unit of any other commodity. 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 fuels used by the reporting sectors. For other 

industries, the quantities of the different fuels 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 estimate the direct carbon emissions by using the 

carbon coefficients, θ f . Indirect carbon emissions for electricity consumption are based on the 

carbon embodied in the average kilowatt-hour. The carbon emissions per unit of industry output 

are given in Table A10, and the direct and indirect 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 higher industry output price on customers’ demand for alternative 

commodities or imports. Since we are not aware of any comprehensive and consistent estimate 

of such elasticities for all industries, we estimate them from a multisector model of the U.S. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

24

economy. Thus, we derive the demand elasticity for each industry from a common (and 

consistent) framework. 

To develop these elasticity estimates we turn to the model described in Adkins and 

Garbaccio (2007) and Adkins (2006). This model identifies 21 industries, including 5 energy 

industries—coal, oil, gas, petroleum products, and electricity. The production functions used are 

constant elasticity of substitution (CES), where capital 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 elasticity for industry j, η j , we simulate the model by putting a 

small tax on the output of j and recording the effect of Xj. This is the general equilibrium effect 

of the tax, allowing all intermediate and final demand users to substitute with alternative 

commodities. The estimated demand elasticities are then applied to all the subindustries in our 

list of 52 industries. The elasticity estimated for, say, chemicals, using the Adkins–Garbaccio 

model is applied to all six subindustries 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 because we believe the short-run 

response is significantly smaller than the long-run response to gasoline 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 United States, the rest of Annex I, and the rest 

of the world.10 The model also calculates the effects of the CO2 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 adjustment or “carbon content 

tax” on imported steel or other energy-intensive manufactures. 

 

10 Annex I refers to those countries that have explicit CO2 targets under the Kyoto Protocol. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

25

V. Industry Patterns of Output, Energy Use, Carbon Intensity, and Imports 

Energy Consumption Patterns and Carbon Intensity 

We first describe the energy consumption patterns and carbon content of the 52 industries 

considered in the short-run analyses. Table 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 total energy, including noncombustion use of fossil 

fuels. The term “total costs” is defined as the total value of all inputs for industry j given in the 

jth 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 manufacturing industries, ranging from more 

than 60 percent in the petroleum industry to less than 1 percent in miscellaneous manufacturing, 

motor vehicles, and other transportation equipment. Outside of manufacturing 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 transportation equipment. Of the 33 manufacturing 

industries identified here, 15 of them have energy costs exceeding 6 percent of total costs. 

Within the manufacturing sector, the contributors to energy costs also vary greatly. For 

many industries, including petroleum refining, petrochemical manufacturing, other basic organic 

chemical manufacturing, and fertilizer manufacturing, more than 70 percent of the energy costs 

are associated with direct fuel combustion. For others, such as other basic inorganic chemical 

manufacturing, alumina refining and primary aluminum production, and ferrous metal foundries, 

electricity accounts for more than 70 percent of total energy costs. 

Outside of manufacturing, electricity generation (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 oil, cubic feet of natural gas, and kilowatt-hours of electricity. It 

also presents the value of industry output and the primary CO2 content per dollar of output, that 

is, the primary CO2 intensity. Primary CO2 includes only the carbon in the fossil fuel combusted 

and in the electricity used: CO2 embodied in intermediate inputs and biomass is excluded. As 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

26

explained in Appendix A, we define industry output as the value contained in the benchmark IO 

table, less the intraindustry transactions given in the diagonal of the IO matrix. 

Ranked by the value of output, the biggest manufacturing industries are food 

manufacturing, other chemicals and plastics, and computer and electrical equipment. These are 

about 50 times larger than small, energy-intensive industries 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 petrochemical manufacturing; and the biggest users of natural gas 

are food manufacturing, refining, and other basic organic chemicals. Other chemicals and plastic 

is the biggest user of electricity, followed by food manufacturing. 

 Industry-specific estimates of primary CO2 intensity are displayed in the last column of 

Table 2. Clearly, electricity has the highest CO2 intensity among the 52 industries. Within 

manufacturing, cement manufacturing has the highest at 5,100 tons of CO2 per million dollars of 

output, followed by petrochemical manufacturing with 4,100 tons and alumina refining and 

primary aluminum with 2,700 tons of CO2 per million dollars of output. At the other extreme, the 

machinery, electrical machinery, and transportation equipment industries have carbon content 

that is less than 120 tons of CO2 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 percent for apparel and 50 percent for computer and electrical 

equipment on the high end to zero for nonferrous metal foundries. In the results presented in the 

next section, the vulnerability to imports or international leakage associated with a unilateral 

increase in the domestic CO2 price depends on the import substitution elasticity, as embodied in 

the Adkins–Garbaccio model, and the import share. 

VI. Effects of a Carbon Tax over Different Time Horizons 

This section presents the results of our four different modeling frameworks. The most 

comprehensive results are available for industrial output, while industry-specific estimates for 

profits, employment, and trade effects are presented for some but not all of the modeling 

horizons. To illustrate the effects of a carbon policy, cap-and-trade, or carbon taxes, we simulate 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

27

the effects of an economywide carbon tax ( Ct ) of $10/ton CO2 (2005$). 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 using equations (20) and (20a) for 

each of the 52 industries. 

Effects on Costs and Output—Very Short–Run Horizon 

The estimates of VS ΔCOSTj (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: DC ΔCOSTj , EL ΔCOSTj , and IN ΔCOSTj . Recall that in this 

very short–run scenario, firms are regarded as being unable to raise prices, adjust output, change 

input mix, or adopt new technologies. 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, where costs rise by 8.3 percent. 

Of the 33 manufacturing industries, two (petrochemical manufacturing and cement) are 

estimated to face increases in production costs (reductions in profits) of 4 percent or more. Three 

more manufacturing industries face cost increases exceeding 2 percent—lime and gypsum, iron 

and steel mills, and alumina refining. An additional 14 manufacturing industries and one 

nonmanufacturing industry (air transportation) face production cost increases of 1 to 2 percent. 

The machinery, transportation equipment, and apparel industries have the lowest cost increases 

at less than half a percent. We should emphasize that these are the effects of a $10/ton tax. If 

they are scaled up proportionately to, say, $50/ton of CO2, 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing costs rise by 3.4 percent due to direct 

combustion but only by 0.4 percent each due to electricity 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 basic inorganic chemicals and 

mineral wool. 

Intermediate inputs other than electricity constitute the biggest share in only a few of the 

high carbon–input industries—plastic material (0.7 out of 1.4 percent), artificial and synthetic 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

28

fibers (0.8 out of 1.6 percent), and other nonmetallic mineral products (0.6 out of 1.0 percent). 

For the low CO2–content industries such as machinery and transportation equipment, other 

intermediate inputs are the major contributors to the increased costs of a CO2 charge. We should 

note again here that process emissions have not been 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 that 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 would have to be specified under any new policy. 

For the nonmanufacturing group, the cost increases for electric utilities and transportation 

are due mostly to the fossil fuel input. In contrast, for the other nonmanufacturing sectors, the 

CO2 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 producers 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 sales 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 percent change in costs due to a $10/ton carbon tax gives our estimate of the 

decline in sales and output (equation 27), as reported 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 industries, the biggest fall 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 elasticity. This is followed by cement with a 4.1 

percent decline in output due to the 5.0 percent increase in costs. Within 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 (to the buyer, not the producer) and the biggest 

declines in sales. Coal mining, oil mining, and gas utilities experience output declines exceeding 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

29

5 percent. Electric utilities see the biggest increase in costs and a big reduction in output (1.4 

percent), followed by the transportation industries. 

 A useful set of comparisons can be made from examining the impact of a CO2 charge 

on the profits of different industries. Table 5 displays the percentage change in profits 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 return to capital, that is, sales revenue less intermediate and labor 

costs. Expressed in this way, in the very short–run two industries, other basic organic chemicals 

and basic inorganic chemicals, face a fall in profits of more than 8 percent from this modest 

carbon tax. Artificial and synthetic fiber manufacturing, and fertilizer also see relatively large 

reductions in profits, exceeding 4 percent. 

However, as firms attempt to pass along the higher costs, even with some reduction in 

sales, a large portion of these losses are recouped for those industries facing inelastic demands, 

that is, for those most able to pass through the higher costs. For example, the 9.4 percent 

reduction in profit in other basic inorganic chemicals 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 cost passthrough. Similar patterns are 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 assumption 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 mining experiences a fall in profits of 0.51 percent 

when we account for the higher oil prices to consumers compared to the very short–run decline 

of 0.11 percent. 

The other nonmanufacturing industries experience effects similar to those in the 

manufacturing group. For example, truck transportation experiences a very short-run loss of 0.56 

percent compared to a short-run loss of 0.07 percent. 

It is clear from these results that the extent 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 very short–run change in profits ranges from 0.3 percent in 
Resources 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 estimated at a four-digit 

classification scheme (based on the Standard Industrial Classification) can be an order of 

magnitude larger those estimated at the two-digit classification 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 level 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 CO2 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 CO2 prices. 

However, one has to be careful about the application of the calculated demand elasticities, η j , as 

these are derived from the parameters in the multisector CGE model and are strictly intended for 

marginal analyses. How the system would respond to large increases in prices 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 industries for manufacturing. The complete data for trade flows and 

production parameters allow for a total of 21 sectors instead of the 52 sectors analyzed for the 

very short– and short-run models. To compare the output responses to the more detailed results 

in the short-run scenario we first aggregate the results for the 52 industries in Table 4 to the same 

21 industrial categories. Table 6 displays the effects of a $10/ton of CO2 (2005$) 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 for the nonmetallic minerals group range from –0.88 

for other nonmetallic mineral products to –4.06 for 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 largest 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 sectors and substitute for energy or labor. 

Furthermore, in the general equilibrium framework both producers and purchasers are changing 

their behavior, and these may have opposing effects on output over time. On one hand, producers 

are substituting inputs to reduce costs and hence prices. Over time, lower prices should help raise 

sales and output. On the other hand, customers 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 short run to long run, we see these opposing 

effects. The magnitudes of the output reductions generally decline, but not uniformly. That is, the 

cost-reducing effect of input substitution 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-intensive inputs. Excluding the 

two exceptions, on average, the output losses in the manufacturing industries are reduced by 

about 16 percent between the short 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 the short run to 0.28 percent in the medium term 

and 0.23 percent in the long run. For primary metals 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, petroleum 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 estimated 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 η j 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 costs and prices; the customers’ response to changes 

in all prices is to lower demand for fabricated metals 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 individual industry-level estimates. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

32

substantially across sectors; for example, the electricity 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 medium run is much bigger than the short-run effect. 

Among the nonmanufacturing industries we also see both patterns of diminished and 

expanded output effects over time. For the fossil fuels sectors and services, the effect of 

producers adapting inputs to lower costs dominates, and output losses diminish over time. For 

the other industries, the general equilibrium effects of customers switching even more to 

substitute products dominate, and output declines further over time. 

The changes in industry level outputs as we move 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, apparel, primary metals, and transportation equipment, the long-run 

effects on output are smaller than those in the medium 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 metals, and other machinery, 

the response is essentially unchanged. That is, the 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 most energy- and carbon-intensive 

industries, and their products experience the biggest price increases. In the medium run their 

customers are limited to substituting alternative intermediate inputs and labor, but in the long run 

they may substitute capital, thereby reducing the demand for these high-carbon content 

intermediate inputs even further. For example, in the medium run nonmetallic mineral products 

experience a 1.14 percent reduction in sales and output, but in the long run they see a 1.20 

percent reduction. 

For one manufacturing industry, electrical machinery, output rises slightly 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 somewhere, and some ended up in 

electrical machinery and services. Labor supply is elastic and falls slightly, 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-run horizon as the period where producers are 

unable to change inputs per unit output, that is, the employment output ratio 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 results 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 demand depends on both the output level and the 

degree of substitution among inputs. Clearly, one would 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-intensive 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 capital in these sectors. 

The effects on employment and capital use for the medium- and long-run horizons 

estimated from simulating the general equilibrium 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 manufacturing 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 run. In primary metals 

the corresponding reductions range from –1.57 percent 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 industries, the percentage reduction in employment is 

smaller than the reduction in output, indicating some substitution of labor for carbon-intensive 

inputs. In four other manufacturing industries the percentage reduction in labor exceeds the 

reduction in output due to the substitution between capital and labor. Since capital is assumed 

fixed in this scenario, the industry is unable to shed capital given the reduction in sales and 

output. Thus, it makes larger reductions in employment. The higher elasticity of capital–labor 

substitution for petroleum refining leads to the biggest fall in employment of any industry. In the 

case of food manufacturing, employment in the medium run actually rises by a small amount 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

34

despite the reduction in output, likely due to the small output effect and the strong substitution 

away from carbon-intensive intermediate inputs. Not surprisingly, this is an industry where the 

carbon embodied in the other intermediate 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 follows the unusual pattern of a larger output 

reduction in the medium run. Petroleum refining is also a special case that has a greater mediumrun output reduction due to the use of more elastic 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, apparel 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 the long run lead to bigger reductions in energy 

consumption and smaller reductions in labor use. 

As noted above, there are two opposing effects on capital use, and the net the effect is 

negative for all but three manufacturing industries. That is, the reduction in capital demand due 

to the reduction in output dominates the substitution of capital for energy in most industries. 

Only in the food, apparel, and electrical machinery industries are the long-run demands for 

capital slightly higher 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 for two industries. In the gas industry and other 

mining, the output reduction is bigger in the medium run compared to the short run, and 

employment follows the same pattern. The two fossil fuel mining industries continue to see large 

reductions in employment, albeit smaller than the short-run impacts. 

In the medium run, we assume full employment. Thus, labor that is released from the 

declining sectors moves to the expanding sectors. Services is the big recipient 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 electric 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 fixed 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 three 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 employment. 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 cheaper labor. The capital that 

moves out of the declining carbon-intensive 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 risen substantially, and the system 

substitutes value added for it, which raises 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 elasticities imposed. Our calculations here are 

certainly not the only plausible ones; other flexible functional forms would have generated a 

different pattern of changes. The key point is that output and employment 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 taken by producers to reduce long-run costs, thus 

generating bigger losses over the long run. 

Trade Impacts 

We turn now to the impacts of CO2 pricing on international competitiveness. Up to this 

point we have been discussing the effects on output, profits, and employment. 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 domestic output that is made up by a change in net imports as a result of the 

domestic policy. Using this definition, we are 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 horizons with the CGE model, we impose a 

carbon tax on fossil fuel consumption 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 CO2 emissions 

intensity was greater than the domestic intensity, global emissions could increase. In the absence of specific data on 

the CO2 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 framework there is no leakage of carbon reductions 

due to imported coal and oil, but some leakage due to increased imports of manufactured goods. 

The results are displayed in Table 8. 

The first column of Table 8 presents the model base year values for domestic 

consumption of the 21 commodities. National domestic consumption is the sum of consumption 

by firms, households, and government 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 CO2 tax, while the last three columns present the contributions 

of the changes in terms of output, imports, and exports. 

 We observe a similar, albeit varied, set of trade impacts across the different industries. In 

the case of chemicals, for example, consumption falls by 0.62 percent. Of that amount, the fall in 

domestic output contributes 1.30 percentage points. However, this output reduction is offset by 

an increase in imports of 0.18 points and a reduction in exports of 0.50 points [–0.62 = –1.30 + 

0.18 – (–0.50)]. Stated alternatively, 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 chemicals 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 manufacturing industries: a 

modest increase in imports and a bigger reduction in exports. Of the 0.49 percent reduction in 

consumption of nonmetallic mineral products, the 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 and exports 0.30 points (a 41 percent leakage). 

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 tax. This is a relatively high leakage rate 

but consistent with other studies. World Bank (2008) first cites the IPCC 2001 report as 

estimating leakages in the order of 5-20 percent, and then, after examining the historical shifts in 

trade, concluded there is “some evidence...of leakage of carbon- and energy-intensive industries 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

37

to developing economies.” Babiker (2005) reports that most studies find leakage rates associated 

with the Kyoto Protocol of 5-25 percent. Babiker’s own calculations, based on a highly 

aggregated model (7 goods, 7 regions), suggests 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 and Fox (2007) analyze a 

unilateral policy but consider a complex combination of carbon tax and output subsidies. They 

report an aggregate leakage rate of 12-15 percent. As previously noted, at the industry level there 

is quite a wide range, for example, for the energy intensive industries the leakage rate is 40-45 

percent. Similarly, the leakage rate in Adkins and Garbaccio (2007) is 35 percent. 13 

In this simple one-period model, the trade deficit of each region is held fixed, that is, the 

carbon tax scenario has the same deficit as the base 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 industry actually experiences both a reduction in 

imports and a rise in exports. Recall that petroleum product imports are also subject to a carbon 

tax, and imports of that commodity also fall. 

These trade effects are sensitive to the import elasticities assumed. Since the CGE model 

is quite aggregated with only 12 manufacturing sectors, some of the elasticities 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 industries 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 economywide carbon tax or cap-and-trade system 

has, quite naturally, focused on the most adversely affected industries. In that context it is useful 

to compare the relative rankings of the different industries across the four 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, petroleum refining, and chemicals and plastics rank 

relatively high across all four time horizons, while food, electrical machinery, and apparel rank 

relatively low. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the very short run and the 

short run is 0.37; between the short and medium run the correlation 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 roughly similar, with a few notable 

exceptions. For the U.S. studies, the results are quite close, reflecting the common data and 

definitions used in the analyses. When comparing the U.S. and European results, however, the 

differences appear somewhat greater. Most significant is the cement industry, which ranks 

number one in the European case studies prepared by McKinsey (2006) and by Reinaud (2005) 

and number two in the cross-industry study of the United Kingdom developed by Hourcade et al. 

(2007). In contrast, cement is roughly in the top 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 control policy would eventually include process 

emissions from cement and other relevant industries, one would expect these industries to move 

up in the rankings to more closely resemble 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 the Reinaud (2005) nor the Hourcade et al. (2007) 

analyses even analyzed petroleum refining. McKinsey (2006) did include it and found that it 

ranked number two behind cement. While petroleum 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 elasticities for petroleum products. We have used a relatively low 

elasticity for our short-run estimate 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 CO2 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 effects: the substitution by 

users toward capital and other inputs 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 CO2 pricing policy will have disproportionate impacts on carbonintensive, import-sensitive industries. Two key challenges for policy development are to identify 

the hardest hit industries and to understand the full extent and 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 pass through added costs, change input mix, 

adopt new technologies, and reallocate capital. While our modeling analyses are based on a fairly 

detailed list of industries, further disaggregation would certainly show an even broader range of 

responses. With this caveat in mind, examination of the results of a $10/ton CO2 charge over 

what we label the very short–, short-, medium-, and long-run horizons yields a number of 

observations: 

• Measured by the reduction in domestic output, a readily identifiable set of industries is at 

greatest risk of contraction over both the short and long terms. Within the manufacturing 

sector, at a relatively aggregate, two- or three-digit industry classification level, the 

hardest hit industries are petroleum refining, chemicals and plastics, primary metals, and 

nonmetallic minerals. 

• Although the short-run output reductions are relatively large in these 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 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 more disaggregated analysis, we observe that the greatest harm is 

concentrated in particular sub-segments of these industries. Petrochemical 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 substantially 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 three-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 manufactured goods. We find that pricing 

CO2 emissions increases manufactured imports and reduces manufactured exports in 

parallel with reducing domestic output. Overall, 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 considerably 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 Trade and Environmental Policy: The Role of 

Pre-Existing Distortions. Ph.D. dissertion. University of Virginia. 

Aldy, Joseph and William Pizer. 2008. The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change 

Mitigation Policies. RFF Discussion Paper 08–21. Forthcoming. Washington DC: Resources for 

the Future. 

Babiker, Mustafa H. 2005. Climate Change Policy, 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 Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufacturers. 

Journal of Political Economy 110(6). 

Ho, Mun S., and Dale W. Jorgensen. 1998. Stabilization 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_climatestrategies_competitiveness_final_report_1

40108.pdf 

Houser, Trevor, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, and Robert Heilmayr. 2008. 

Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: 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. 1993. 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 (Directorate 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 Policies on Manufacturing Industries. Energy Policy 32(16): 

1825–1842. 

Reinaud, J. 2005. Industrial Competitiveness under 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. Research study # 90. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

World Bank. 2008. International Trade and Climate 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 8.5 
Resources 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 0.0 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, a

45

Table 2. Combusted-Only Energy Consumption and CO2 Intensity, 2002 

Output 

(billion $) 

Coal 

(million 

short 

tons) 

Crude 

oil 

(million 

bbls) 

Petroleum–

LPG 

(million 

bbls) 

Petroleum–

other 

(million 

bbls) 

Gas 

(billion 

cu. ft.) 

Electric

(billion 

kWh) 

Manufacturing industriesFood 470.4 9.1 0.0 1.4 21.2 605.0 75.2 Textile 59.7 1.0 0.0 0.6 3.5 100.0 30.1 Apparel 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 20.0 4.3 Wood and furniture 136.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.2 80.0 28.0 Pulp mills 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 23.0 1.6 Paper mills 45.3 13.2 0.0 0.4 8.2 216.0 34.0 Paperboard mills 21.1 3.8 0.0 0.1 5.6 183.0 16.4 Other papers 173.3 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.0 113.0 28.3 Refining–LPG 21.0 1.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 94.1 4.1 Refining–others 169.8 11.6 325.1 6.0 0.0 759.9 33.1 Petrochemical manufacturing 14.7 1.1 2.2 156.5 7.3 168.0 11.9 Other basic inorganic chemical mfg. 15.2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.9 66.5 25.9 Other basic organic chemical mfg. 47.6 7.1 2.1 32.2 11.0 479.0 27.5 Plastics material and resin mfg. 44.8 1.2 1.4 10.0 0.2 291.2 18.6 Artificial and synthetic fibers, filaments 7.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 55.2 2.9 Fertilizer manufacturing 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 203.0 4.5 Other chemicals and plastics 403.1 3.5 0.1 5.1 15.4 473.0 109.9 Glass container manufacturing 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 3.9 Cement manufacturing 7.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 16.1 21.0 12.5 Lime and gypsum product mfg. 4.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 7.0 1.4 Mineral wool manufacturing 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 34.0 3.8 Other nonmetallic mineral 67.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 6.8 297.0 19.9 Iron and steel mills, ferroalloy mfg. 41.9 19.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 383.5 57.5 Alumina refining, primary 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 22.9 127.0 56.7 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, a

46

aluminum Ferrous metal foundries 14.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 26.9 8.2 Nonferrous metal foundries 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 30.0 3.2 Other primary metals 28.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 2.2 84.0 18.9 Fabricated metals 219.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 204.0 47.1 Machinery 221.6 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.0 80.0 24.6 Computer and electrical equipment 363.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 12.0 114.0 52.3 Motor vehicles 326.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.8 154.1 36.3 Other transportation equipment 134.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 43.5 14.2 Miscellaneous manufacturing 115.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 31.0 10.4 Nonmanufacturing industriesFarms 177.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 119.9 58.0 41.1 Forestry, fishing, and hunting 34.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 1.4 0.9 Oil mining 61.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.7 71.7 12.4 Gas mining 41.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 48.3 8.3 Coal mining 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 36.3 5.8 Other mining activities 57.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.4 151.1 21.0 Electric utilities (including government enterprises) 259.6 977.5 0.0 0.0 91.4 5,676.8 0.0 Gas utilities 82.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.4 Construction 966.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 669.2 123.4 44.7 Trade 1,850.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 145.5 349.7 232.8 Air transportation 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 311.0 0.8 1.2 Truck transportation 194.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 357.0 23.0 8.4 Other transportation 329.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.2 634.0 32.9 Information 824.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 275.0 42.3 Finance and insurance 1,138.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 45.5 26.1 Real estate and rental 1,932.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 59.3 172.2 222.3 Business services 1,710.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 352.6 307.7 100.1 Other services 2,370.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.1 1,079.7 403.6 Government excluding electricity 2,043.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 910.4 2,795.9 159.3 

Note: CO2 intensity 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 $10/ton CO2 (2005$) 

 

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 0.3 
Resources 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 CO2 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 –1.04 
Resources 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 –0.31 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

50

Table 5. Very Short Run versus Short Run: Effect on Profits of a $10/ton CO2 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 –0.04 
Resources 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 –0.03 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

52

Table 6. Effect on Output of a $10/ton CO2 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 0.06 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

53

Table 7. General Equilibrium Effects on Employment and Capital of a $10/ton CO2 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 0.07 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

54

 Table 8. Long-Run Trade Effects of CO2 Tax on Domestic and Imported Fuels 

Contribution** 

 

Base case 

domestic 

consumption* 

(million $) 

Domestic 

consumption 

with CO2 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 CO2

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 0.98 
Resources 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–print 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 Transport 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 iron 
Resources 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 drawn 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 outputs and inputs, including energy inputs, for the 

52 industries identified in our study from these 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 inputs 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 “Use” matrix as well as a 50-industries and 50-commodities 

“Make” matrix. The electric utility sector includes electric power generation, transmission, and 

distribution; federal electric utilities; and state and local 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) and refining–others by using the 

same procedure. In the end, we have 52 industrial/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 rebalance the Use matrix for the cells not in the seven 

fuel commodities constrained on the row (intermediate commodity consumption) and column 

(intermediate industrial output) sums. We follow a similar procedure for the Make matrix. 

The resulting 52 industrial sectors are displayed 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 columns 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 commodities is output plus imports, less exports, plus 

inventory change. Consumption levels are displayed 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 intermediate 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 provide the detailed estimates of input values of 

the seven energy commodities (oil 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 national consumption. For example, petroleum 

refining buys a lot of crude oil from “oil and gas mining,” and its output is purchased by all 52 

industries and final demand. 

A.2 Energy Use 

We estimate CO2 emissions for the 52 industrial sectors 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. MECS 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 consumption value data from the IO table and quantity 

data from AER to estimate energy consumption quantity data for other sectors. In the following 

section, we discuss the development of price and quantity data for these seven energy sources. 

One common way of estimating the quantity of energy use at this level of aggregation is 

to assume that every purchaser pays the same economy 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 data on energy consumption and expenditures, fuelswitching capability, onsite generation 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) consists of all manufacturing establishments 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, distillate fuel oil, natural gas, 

LPG and NGL, and net electricity for the manufacturing 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 gives 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 withheld (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, energy balance. We use the 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 table 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 average prices. For the other industries we have to 

assume a common price. This common price is derived by first subtracting the quantity used in 

the manufacturing group and agriculture from the national total. The value of consumption 

outside of these two groups is then divided by this residual quantity to give the common price. 

The use of coal, oil, and gas for each industry outside of manufacturing and 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 nonmanufacturing sectors. We divided the intermediate value 

 

15 The MECS for 2002 was downloaded from 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/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 intermediate implicit price. We used this price along with 

the quantity of coal to update the IO values. Total coal consumption and combusted coal are 

displayed in Table A4. 

A.2.3 Oil 

For 2002, total U.S. domestic crude oil consumption is 5,433 million barrels, which 

includes 2,097 million barrels17 from domestic production and 3,336 million barrels18 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 estimate 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 and 872 million barrels of refinery 

imports. The farm sector consumes about 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 using 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 petroleum–LPG and petroleum–others are listed in 

Tables A6 and A7, respectively. 

A.2.5 Natural Gas 

The sources of domestic natural gas consumption 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 consume 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 industrial sectors (electric utility). On the basis of 

this procedure, we estimate that gas utility purchased about 14,996 billion cubic feet of natural 

gas from gas mining. We know that the farm sector consumes about 58 billion cubic feet of 

natural gas.23 For the manufacturing sector, we know the amount of natural gas consumed from 

gas utilities by subtracting natural gas consumption (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 recalculate the IO values for 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 quantity 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 Statistics Service 

collects data on energy expenses and prices at the regional level. 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 used 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 his 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 derive 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/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1066. 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

63

AER25 gives the total national consumption in 2002 at 3,632 billion kWh. Applying this 

figure to the IO table value of electricity and electricity consumption by manufacturing 

industries, we estimate electricity consumption for other nonmanufacturing sectors. We then use 

a common price to rescale the electricity consumption IO values. 

A.3 CO2 Emissions and Intensity 

We estimate CO2 emissions in the United States at 5,752 million metric tons, representing 

about 85 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. Most CO2 is emitted as a result of the combustion 

of fossil fuels and is highly correlated with energy use. In this research we consider primary CO2

emissions from coal, oil, petroleum, and natural gas. We also consider total CO2 emissions, 

which include primary emissions plus emissions due to electricity consumption for individual 

sectors. Table A10 shows our estimates of total CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions from direct 

combustion of primary fuels, and CO2 emissions due to electricity consumptions for individual 

sectors. Table A11 shows total and primary CO2 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 enterprises) 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 mineral 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 1,710,859 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 1,682,805 
Resources 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 32 
Resources 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 21,495 
Resources 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 mineral 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 fuels, 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 56 
Resources 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 mineral 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 0.0 
Resources 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 0.1 
Resources 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 0.0 
Resources 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 0.0 
Resources 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 0.0 
Resources 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 2.2 
Resources 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 988.5 910.4 
Resources 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) 0 
Resources 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 159,306 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

77

Table A10. CO2 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 40,790,074 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 11,358,202 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 32,017,530 19,759,685 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 6,394,272 
Resources 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 CO2 Emissions Intensity (metric tons/million $)

Sector 

Total CO2

intensity 

Primary CO2

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 3,991.8 
Resources 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 300.0 251.9 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

80

Appendix B. Adkins–Garbaccio 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, η j . The model is described in detail in Adkins and Garbaccio 

(2007) and Adkins (2006), and we only 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 countries that essentially have had a very different pattern of 

exports and imports with the U.S. compared with the rest of the world. In particular, the rest of 

the world exports oil to the United States. 

GTAP identifies 52 industries, many of which are in the agriculture group. These are 

aggregated to 21 industries as shown in Table B2. 

The model is a one-period (long-run) model where the labor supply is elastic. The 

production functions are CES nested functions; at the top tier the value-added energy bundle is 

substitutable with all other intermediate 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 Belgium 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 world 
Resources 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 nonferrous 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

t r

n

t r n

t r n

t r nt r

t r t r t r t r

t r

t r PN PVE

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 tr tr t r 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

t r

v

t r vt r

f f t r f r

t r

t r PF

a

PVC , , , 1

1

1

, , ,

,

,

1 σ σ σ δ − − ⋅ ∑ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = (7) 

 ( ) [ ] en

t r

en

t r ent r

t t t r t r

t r

t r PX

kk

PEN , , , 1

1

5

1

5, , 5,

,

,

1 σ σ σ κ − − ⋅ ∑ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = (8) 

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

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

 ( ) t r

t r

t r

t r

t r

t r Q PVE

PTC

aa

VE

n

t r nt r

,

,

,

,

1

,

,

, ,

1 1 ⋅ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ − ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

−σ σ

ζ value-added energy bundle (13) 

 ( ) t r

t r

t r

t r

t r

t r VE

VC

PVE

ee

VA

ve

t r vet r

,

,

,

,

1

,

,

, ,

1 1 ⋅ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ − ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

− σ σ

η (14) 

 t r

t r

t r

t r

t r

t r VE

PEN

PVE

ee

EN

ve

t r vet r

,

,

,

,

1

,

,

, ,

1 ⋅ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

− σ σ

η (15) 

 t r

t r

t r

t r

t r

t r Q PN

PTC

aa

NX

n

t r nt r

,

,

,

,

1

,

,

, ,

1 ⋅ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

− σ σ

ζ total interim input (16) 

 t r

t r

t r

t t r

t r

t t r EN

PX

PEN

kk

IX

en

t r ent r

,

5,

,

5, ,

1

,

5, ,

, ,

1 ⋅ ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

− σ σ

κ (17) 

 t t r t t r NXt r IX 6, , io 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 

PWEt,s,r World price (seller price FOB) 

PEt,r Exported goods price 

PWMt,s,r Buyer price (CIF) 

PMt,r Aggregate imported goods price 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

83

PXt,r Composite goods price 

PDt,r Domestic goods price 

Pt,r Average output price 

PTCt,r TCP Sectoral unit cost of production 

PVEt,r Value-added energy composite price 

PVCt,r VC Value-added composite price 

PENt,r Energy composite price 

PNt,r Intermediate good composite price 

PFNf,r Factor price (net of tax) 

PFf,r Factor price (gross of tax) 

PCt,r Consumer purchase price 

CPIr Consumer price index 

ERTr Exchange rate 

VEt,r Value-added energy composite good 

VAt,r Value-added composite 

ENt,r Energy composite 

VCt,r Sectoral variable production cost 

NXt,r Composite intermediate good 

IXt,k,r Intermediate demand 

DFf,t,r Sectoral factor demand 

Ct,r Household consumption 

GCt,r Government consumption 

IDt,r Investment demand 

SUPYr Household consumption above subsistence level 

SXt,r Composite good supply 

DXt,r Domestic sales of domestically made good 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

84

Xt,s,r Trade flows 

EXt,r Exports 

MXt,r Sectoral imports by region 

TRQSr International shipping supply by region 

PTR International shipping service price 

TRQDt,r International shipping demand by region 

TRQ Total international transport supply 

HDIr Household disposable income 

SAVr Household savings 

GREVr Government revenue 

TARIFFr Tariff revenue 

ETAXr Export tax revenue 

PTAXr Output tax revenue 

CTAXr Consumption tax revenue 

FTAXr Factor tax revenue 

HTAXr Household tax revenue 

NETINFLr Net capital inflow by country 

CO2TAXFt1,r Carbon tax per fuel 

CO2TAXr Country carbon tax 

CO2TAXRr Country carbon tax revenue 

CO2TOTr Total CO2 emissions by country 

GDPRr GDP (final demand) 

GDPVAr GDP (value added) 

PINDEXr GDP deflator (numeraire) 

Qt,r Sectoral output 

FSf,r Factor endowment by region 
Resources for the Future Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih 

85

INVr Gross investment by region 

GSAVr Government savings 

GPURr GSP Government purchases 

GTRANSr 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 -2.596 
Resources 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