Impacts of Second Generation Bioethanol Production on the Japanese Economy: Evidence From a Computable General Equilibrium Model
The target of a bioethanol introduction policy is to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) by substituting fossil fuels with bioethanol. To make such an environmental policy feasible, economic pros and cons need to be considered, but the impacts on the Japanese economy are still quantitatively unclear. This study aimed to evaluate environmental and economic impacts of bioethanol introduction policies by a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, J-DCGE model. We considered three production technologies, i.e. first generation technology using edible parts of agricultural products as bioethanol materials, second generation present technology using non-edible parts of agricultural products, and second generation advanced technology that is expected to be used in future production plants. Simulation results demonstrated the following points. First, replacing a fixed rate of gasoline with bioethanol reduced imports of petroleum products, and consequently raised the selfsufficiency rate for energy. Second, the introduction of bioethanol produced by second generation advanced technology increased total income and raised GDP. However, first generation and second generation present technologies decreased GDP. Hence, acceleration of production technology by research and development is highly desirable. Third, a bioethanol introduction policy cut GHG emissions, but such environmental effects were smaller than the initial reduction in GHG emissions from gasoline consumption. This is because the policy stimulates domestic production. In this sense, policy makers need to consider the ripple effects of environmental policies through economic factors.
Key wordsCO2 emissions production costs first generation technology second generation technology
JEL ClassificationC68 D58 Q21 Q28 Q48
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This study was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research  and  (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture). The authors greatly appreciate their support.
- Birur, D.K., T.W. Hertel and W.E. Tyner. 2008, Impact of biofuel production on world agricultural markets: a computable general equilibrium analysis, GTAP working Paper No.53. Center for Global Trade Analysis in Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.Google Scholar
- Boeters, S., P. Veenendaal, N. Leeuwen and H. Rojas-Romagoza. 2008. The potential for biofuels alongside the EU-ETS. Paper presented at the 11th Annual GTAP Conference. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
- Gurgel, A.C., J.M. Reilly and S. Paltsev. 2007. Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. Jounal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5 (Article 9), Special Issue: Explorations in Biofuels Economics, Policy and History.Google Scholar
- Hertel, T.W. 1990. General Equilibrium Analysis of U.S. Agriculture: What Does it Contribute? Journal of Agricultural Economic Research 42(3): 3–9.Google Scholar
- Hertel, T.W., W.F. Tyner and D.K. Birur. 2008. Biofuels for all? Understanding the global impacts of multinational mandates. GTAP Working Paper No.51. Center for Global Trade Analysis in Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.Google Scholar
- Ichioka, O. 1991. Applied General Equilibrium Analysis, Yuhikaku, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
- Kawasaki, K. 1999. Basic and Application of Computable General Equilibrium Model. Nihon Hyoron Shya, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
- Kretschmer, B., S. Peterson and A. Ignaciuk. 2008. Integrating biofuels into the DART model. Kiel Working Paper 1472 in Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany. (In German)Google Scholar
- Kunimitsu, Y. and T. Ueda. 2013. Economic and environmental evaluation on rice straw bioethanol production in Vietnam. Studies in Regional Science 42(3): 31–48.Google Scholar
- Kunimitsu, Y. 2012. A Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model for Analysis of Rural Development Policies. Technical Report of the National Institute for Rural Engineering 212: 189–210.Google Scholar
- Melillo, J.M., A.C. Gurgel, D.W. Kickligther, J.M. Reilly, T.W. Cronin, B.D. Felzer, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, A.P. Sokolo and X. Wang. 2009. Unintended environmental consequences of a global biofuels program. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Climate Change Report No. 168, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA.Google Scholar
- Saito, K. 1996. Economic Effects of Minimum Access in Rice. Journal of Rural Economics 68(1):10–19.Google Scholar
- Shiina, T., T. Origasa, T. Tokuyasu, R. Poritosh, T. Inoue, H. Kojima and N. Nakamura. 2009. Evaluation on production costs, energy balance and CO2 emissions of bioethanol production using rice straw. Research Topics of National Institute of Food Research: http://www.nfri.affrc.go.jp/research/seika/seikah21/.Google Scholar
- Taheripour, F., T.W. Hertel, W.E. Tyner, J.F. Beckman and D.K. Birur. 2008. Biofuels and their by-products: global economic and environmental implications. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, USA.Google Scholar
- Urbanchuk, J.M. 2009. 2008 Contributions of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States. RFA Reports and Studies, Renewable Fuels Association.Google Scholar