Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 347–380 | Cite as

Assessment of Acceptable Swiss post-2012 Climate Policies

  • André Sceia
  • Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera
  • Marc Vielle
  • Nicolas Weidmann
Open Access


In the framework of the revision of the Swiss CO2-Law and in the preparation of the international negotiations that place at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Swiss Government has proposed a set of instruments and two levels of abatement to define the Swiss climate policy for the post-2012 period. By 2030, Switzerland would recuce its GHG emission by 30% or 45%, depending on whether or not the rest of the world world would commit to strong emissions reductions. The proposed policies are the result of consultation procedures take into account the views of major stakeholders and lobbies and allow for differienciated carbon prices in different sectors of the Swiss economy. Linking a Cumputable General Equilibrium (CGE) and two sectoral energy models, we evaluate the policies for the two scenarios. We find important disparities in the prices of carbon faced by the different economic sectors and higher welfare costs than those that would be triggered by a uniform carbon tax.


Climate policy Environmental taxation Hybrid modeling Transport Residential Welfare economics 


C68 D58 Q54 N70 


  1. Amstalden, Roger W., Michael Kost, Carsten Nathani, and Dieter M. Imboden (2007), “Economic Potential of Energy-Efficient Retrofitting in the Swiss Residential Building sector: The Effects of Policy Instruments and Energy Price Expectations”, Energy Policy, 35(3), pp. 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babonneau, Frédéric, Alain Haurie, Richard Loulou, and Marc Vielle (2011), “Combining Stochastic Optimization and Monte Carlo Simulation to Deal with Uncertainties in Climate Policy Assessment”, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  3. Baranzini, Andrea, Philippe Thalmann, and Camille Gonseth (2004), Voluntary Approaches in Climate Policy, chap. “Swiss Climate Policy: Combining VAs with other Instruments under the Menace of a CO2 Tax”, pp. 249–276, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, A., and M. Vielle (2008), “GEMINI-E3, a General Equilibrium Model of International-National Interactions between Economy, Energy and the Environment”, Computational Management Science, 5(3), pp. 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhringer, Christoph, and Thomas F. Rutherford (2002), “Carbon Abatement and International Spillovers”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, pp. 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böhringer, Christoph, and Thomas F. Rutherford (2004),”Who Should Pay how Much?”, Computational Economics, 23, pp. 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Böhringer, Christoph, and Thomas F. Rutherford (2008), “Combining Bottom-Up and Top-Down”, Energy Economics, 30(2), pp. 574–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Böhringer, Christoph, Thomas F. Rutherford, and Richard S. J. Tol (2009), “The EU 20/20/2020 Targets: An Overview of the EMF22 Assessment”, Energy Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof.Google Scholar
  9. Böhringer, Christoph, and Thomas F. Rutherford (2009), “Integrated Assessment of Energy Policies: Decomposing Top-Down and Bottom-Up”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33(9), pp. 1648–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, Leon, Jae Edmonds, Volker Krey, Richard Richels, Steven Rose, and Massimo Tavoni (2009), “International Climate Policy Architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios”, Energy Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Demailly, Damien, and Philippe Quirion (2006),”CO2 Abatement, Competitiveness and Leakage in the European Cement Industry under the EU ETS: Grandfathering versus Output-Based Allocation”, Climate Policy, 6, pp. 93–113(21).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drouet, L., A. Haurie, M. Labriet, P. Thalmann, L. Viguier, and M. Vielle (2005), “A Coupled Bottom-Up/Top-Down Model for GHG Abatement Scenarios in the Housing Sector of Switzerland”, in Energy and Environment, R. Loulou, J.-P. Waaub, and G. Zaccour (eds), pp. 27–61, Springer, New York (United States).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Energy Information Administration (2008), International Energy Outlook 2008, Washington D.C.: EIA/DOE.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2009a), “Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 — On the Effort of Member States to Reduce their Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Meet the Community’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Commitments up to 2020”, Official Journal of the European Union, L 140, pp. 136–148.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2009b), “Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 — Setting Emission Performance Standards for New Passenger Cars as Part of the Community’s Integrated Approach to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles”, Official Journal of the European Union, L 140, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  16. Fredriksson, Per G. (1997), “The Political Economy of Pollution Taxes in a Small Open Economy”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(1), pp. 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frei, Christoph W., Pierre-André Haldi, and Gérard Sarlos (2003), “Dynamic formulation of a top-down and bottom-up merging energy policy model”, Energy Policy, 31(10), pp. 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossman, G. M., and E. Helpman (2001), Special Interest Politics, M.I.T Press, Cambridge, Ma.Google Scholar
  19. Grubb, Michael, Christian Azar, and U. Martin Persson (2005), “Allowance Allocation in the European Emissions Trading System: A Commentary”, Climate Policy, 5, 127–136(10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, W. Jill, J. Mark Horridge, and K. R. Pearson (2000), “Decomposing Simulation Results with Respect to Exogenous Shocks”, Computational Economics, 15, pp. 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haurie, A., M. Tavoni, and B. van der Zwaan (2011), “Modeling Uncertainty and the Economics of Climate Change: Recommendations for Robust Energy Policy”, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  22. Hepburn, Cameron, Michael Grubb, Karsten Neuhoff, Felix Matthes, and Maximilien Tse (2006), “Auctioning of EU ETS phase II Allowances: How and Why”, Climate Policy, 6, pp. 137–160(24).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hof, Andries, Michel den Elzen, and Detlef van Vuuren (2009), “Environmental Effectiveness and Economic Consequences of Fragmented versus Universal Regimes: What Can We Learn from Model Studies?”, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(1), pp. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Infras (2006), “Die Nutzen des Verkehrs, Teilprojekt 2: Beitrag des Verkehrs zur Wertschöpfung in der Schweiz”, Tech. rep., Federal Office for Spacial Development and Federal Road Office.Google Scholar
  25. International Energy Agency (2009), “How the Energy Sector Can Deliver on a Climate Agreement in Copenhagen”, Tech. rep., IEA/OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone, N. (2003), “The use of Tradable Permits in Combination with other Policy Instruments”, Working Party on National Environmental Policy ENV/ EPOC/WPNEP(2002)28/FINAL, OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  27. Loulou, Richard, and Maryse Labriet (2008), “ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES Integrated Assessment Model Part I: Model Structure”, Computational Management Science, 5(1), pp. 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michaelowa, Axel (2004), “Policy Integration as a Success Factor for Emissions Trading”, Environmental Management, 33(6), pp. 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy, Rose, Nic Rivers, and Mark Jaccard (2007), “Hybrid Modeling of Industrial Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions with an Application to Canada”, Energy Economics, 29(4), pp. 826–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niederberger, Anne Arquit (2005), “The Swiss Climate Penny: An Innovative Approach to Transport Sector Emissions”, Transport Policy, 12(4), pp. 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (2008), Environmental Outlook to 2030, OECD.Google Scholar
  32. Persson, T., and G. Tabellini (2000), Political Economics and Economic Policy, M.I.T Press, Cambridge, Ma.Google Scholar
  33. Sceia, A. (2010), Three Steps toward Modeling Swiss post-2012 Climate Policies, Ph.D. thesis, EPFL.Google Scholar
  34. Sceia, A., J.-C. Altamirano-Cabrera, T.F. Schulz, and M. Vielle (2009), “Sustainability, Neutrality and Beyond in the Framework of Swiss post-2012 Climate Policy”, NCCR-Climate Working Papers.Google Scholar
  35. Sceia, André, Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera, Laurent Drouet, Thorsten Schulz, and Marc Vielle (2011), “Integrated Assessment of Swiss GHG Mitigation Policies After 2012”, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Schäfer, Andreas, and Henry D. Jacoby (2005), “Technology Detail in a Multisector CGE Model: Transport under Climate Policy”, Energy Economics, 27(1), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schulz, T. F. (2007), Intermediate Steps toward the 2000 Watt Society in Switzerland : An Energy-Economic Scenario Analysis, Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich.Google Scholar
  38. Schumacher, Katja, and Ronald D. Sands (2007), “Where are the Industrial Technologies in Energy-Economy models? An innovative CGE Approach for Steel Production in Germany”, Energy Economics, 29(4), pp. 799–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strachan, Neil, and Ramachandran Kannan (2008), “Hybrid Modeling of Long-Term Carbon Reduction Scenarios for the UK”, Energy Economics, 30(6), pp. 2947–2963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swiss Confederation (1999), «Loi fédérale du 8 octobre 1999 sur la réduction des émissions de CO2 (Loi sur le CO2)», (RS 641.71).Google Scholar
  41. Swiss Confederation (2007), «Ordonnance du 8 juin 2007 sur la taxe sur le CO2 (Ordonnance sur le CO2)», (RS 641.712).Google Scholar
  42. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2006), «Limites des instruments et des mesures d’encouragement / activités Confédération, cantons et centime climatique», Tech. rep., Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication Office fédéral de l’énergie.Google Scholar
  43. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2007), «Perspectives énergétiques pour 2035 (tome 1) synthèse», Tech. rep., Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication Office fédéral de l’énergie.Google Scholar
  44. Tol, Richard S. J. (2009), “Intra- and Extra-Union Flexibility in Meeting the European Union’s Emission Reduction Targets”, Energy Policy, 37(11), pp. 4329–4336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Vuuren, Detlef P., Michel G. J. den Elzen, Jasper van Vliet, Tom Kram, Paul Lucas, and Morna Isaac (2009), “Comparison of Different Climate Regimes: The Impact of Broadening Participation”, Energy Policy, 37(12), pp. 5351–5362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wing, I. (2006), “The Synthesis of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches to Climate Policy: Electric Power Technologies and the Cost of Limiting US CO2 Emissions”, Energy Policy, 34, pp. 3847–3869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Sceia
    • 1
  • Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera
    • 2
  • Marc Vielle
    • 1
  • Nicolas Weidmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Economics and Environmental Management Laboratory — Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco, Department of EconomicsResearch Group on Environment and GrowthMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Energy Economics Group — Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI)VilligenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations