Impacts of Second Generation Bioethanol Production on the Japanese Economy: Evidence From a Computable General Equilibrium Model

  • Yoji KunimitsuEmail author


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 words

CO2 emissions production costs first generation technology second generation technology 

JEL Classification

C68 D58 Q21 Q28 Q48 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This study was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23404029] and [22530256] (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture). The authors greatly appreciate their support.


  1. Babiker, M., A. Gurgel, S. Paltsev and J. Reilly. 2009. Forward-looking versus recursivedynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: A comparison. Economic Modelling 26(6): 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banse, M., H. Van Meijl, A. Tabeau and G. Woltjer. 2008. Will EU Biofuel Policies Affect Global Agricultural Markets? European Review of Agricultural Econoomics 35(2): 117–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayar, A. 2011. Environmental CGE Modeling with GAMS. Modeling School EcoMod in Washington DC, USA: Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Dixon P.B., S. Osborne and M.T. Rimmer. 2007. The economy-wide effects in the United States of replacing crude petroleum with biomass. Energy and Environment 18(6): 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. F.O.Licht GmbH and Agra CEAS Consulting. 2007. Ethanol Production Costs: A Worldwide Survey. Agra Informa Ltd., United Kingdom: Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Ichioka, O. 1991. Applied General Equilibrium Analysis, Yuhikaku, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  12. Kawasaki, K. 1999. Basic and Application of Computable General Equilibrium Model. Nihon Hyoron Shya, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  13. Kobayashi, S., K. Saito, H. Tanji, W. Huang and M. Tada. 2008. Economic Structure of Cambodia and Strategies for Pro-Poor Growth: Results from a Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Studies in Regional Science 38(1): 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koizumi, T. and K. Ohga. 2009. Impacts of the Expansion of Brazilian FFV Utilization and U.S.Biofuel Policy Amendment on the World Sugar and Corn Markets: An Econometric Simulation Approach. Japanese Journal of Rural Economics 11: 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Kretschmer, B. and S. Peterson. 2010. Integrating bioenergy into computable general equilibrium models - A survey. Energy Economics 32: 673–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Poritosh, R., K. Tokuyasu, T. Orikasa, N. Nakamura and T. Shiina. 2012. A technoeconomic and environmental evaluation of the life cycle of bioethanol produced from rice straw by RT-CaCCO process. Biomass and Bioenergy 37: 188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saito, K. 1996. Economic Effects of Minimum Access in Rice. Journal of Rural Economics 68(1):10–19.Google Scholar
  22. 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: Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Tokunaga, S., B.P. Pesosudarmo, L.E. Wuryanto and T.D. Nguyen. 2003. An Inter-regional CGE Model to Assess the Impacts of Tariff Reduction and Fiscal Decentralization on Regional Economy: The Case of Indonesia. Studies in Regional Science 33(2): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Rural Engineering of NARO / Rural Development Planning DivisionTsukuba, IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations