EU Climate and Energy Policy Beyond 2020: Is a Single Target for GHG Reduction Sufficient?

  • Alistair Smith
  • Unnada Chewpreecha
  • Jean-Francois Mercure
  • Hector PollittEmail author


The immediate and long-term requirements of energy policy in Germany and the wider EU are widespread. In addition to meeting decarbonisation targets to mitigate climate change, energy policy must be designed in such a way that is socio-economically advantageous, delivering multi-policy objectives of energy security, a stable environment for energy system operation, affordable energy prices for consumers and industry, and an environment conducive to economic growth.

There has been much debate about the merits and weaknesses of alternative policy frameworks to deliver on emissions targets. Introduced in 2005, the EU emissions trading system (ETS) was designed to monetise the externalities associated with GHG emissions, with many citing the carbon price as providing the most efficient and cost-effective means of achieving a certain emissions target. By contrast, subsidies for renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency measures, when implemented alongside an emissions trading scheme, are often criticized for increasing the costs of emissions abatement and producing no additional environmental benefits. This chapter re-assesses the merits and weaknesses of this policy mix and explores the socio-economic impacts of alternative policy scenarios that achieve the same emissions target. We use E3ME, a global macro-econometric model, to show that environmental regulation and subsidies for energy efficiency and renewable investment at European level, when implemented alongside a carbon price, lead to improved long-term environmental and socio-economic outcomes compared to when a carbon price is the sole policy instrument.


  1. Böhringer, C., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2011). Greening electricity more than necessary: On the cost implications of overlapping regulation in EU climate policy. Climate Policy, 131, 469–492.Google Scholar
  2. Böhringer, C., Löschel, A., Moslener, U., & Rutherford, T. F. (2009). EU climate policy up to 2020: An economic impact assessment. Energy Economics, 31, S295–S305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosetti, V., Gerlagh, R., & Schleicher, S. (2009). Modelling sustainable development: Transitions to a sustainable future. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cambridge Econometrics. (2014). E3ME technical manual, version 6.0. Cambridge: Cambridge Econometrics.Google Scholar
  5. del Rio, P. (2017). Why does the combination of the European Union emissions trading and a renewable energy target make sense? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 824–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, P., & Jorgensen, D. (2012). Handbook of computable general equilibrium modeling. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  7. E3MLab, National Technical University of Athens. (2017). GEM-E3 model manual. Athens: Institute of Communications and Computers Systems, National Technical University of Athens.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2016). EU reference scenario, 2016 – Energy, transport and GHG emissions – trends to 2050. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  9. Fankenhauser, S., Hepburn, C., & Park, J. (2010). Combining multiple climate policy instruments: How not to do it. Climate Change Economics, 1. Scholar
  10. Goldberg, M., & Frydman, R. (2007). Imperfect knowledge economics: Exchange rates and risk, Princeton.Google Scholar
  11. Grubb, M., Neuhoff, K., & Hourcade, J. (2014). Planetary economics. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haldane, A., & Turrell, A. (2017). An interdisciplinary model for macroeconomics, Working Paper No 696. London: Bank of England.Google Scholar
  13. Hertel, T. (1999). Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. IEA. (2014). Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  15. IEA. (2016). World energy outlook. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  16. Jansen, H., & Klaassen, G. (2000). Economic impacts of the 1997 EU energy tax: Simulations with three EU-wide models. Environmental and Resource Economics, 15, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keynes, J. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: MacMillan.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. King, J. (2015). Advanced introduction to post Keynesian economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Lavoie, M. (2015). Post-Keynesian economics: New foundations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Lehmann, P., & Gawel, E. (2013). Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme? Energy Policy, 52, 597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann et al. (2019). EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: Are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable? In E. Gawel, S. Strunz, P. Lehmann, & A. Purkus (Eds.), The European dimension of Germany’s energy transition – Opportunities and conflicts. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Loulou, R., Remne, U., Kanudia, A., Lehtila, A., & Goldstein, G. (2005). Documentation for the TIMES Model – PART I 1–78. IEA-ETSAP.Google Scholar
  23. Lucas, R. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. In K. Brunner & A. Meltzer (Eds.), The phillips curve and labor markets. Carnegie-Rochester conference series on public policy (Vol. 1, pp. 19–46). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. McLeay, M., Radia, A., & Thomas, R. (2014). Money creation in the modern economy, Quarterly Bulletin, 2014Q1. London: Bank of England.Google Scholar
  25. Meran, G., & Wittmann, N. (2012). Green, brown, and now white certificates: Are three one too many? A micro-model of market interaction. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53, 507–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mercure, J.-F. (2012). FTT:Power: A global model of the power sector with induced technological change and natural resource depletion. Energy Policy, 48, 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercure, J.-F., & Salas, P. (2012). An assessment of global energy resource economic potentials. Energy, 46, 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercure, J.-F., & Salas, P. (2013). On the global economic potentials and marginal costs of non-renewable resources and the price of energy commodities. Energy Policy, 63, 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messner, S., & Strubegger, M. (1995). User’s guide for Message III, Working Paper. International Institute of Applied System Analysis (IIASA).Google Scholar
  30. Pollitt, H., & Mercure, J.-F. (2017). The role of money and the financial sector in energy-economy models used for assessing climate and energy policy. Climate Policy, 18, 184–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and andframework for analysis. Research Policy, 45, 1620–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seebregts, A. J., Goldstein, G. A., & Smekens, K. (2001). Energy/environmental modelling with the MARKAL family of models. Operation Research Proceedings 2001/2002, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
  33. Sijm, J., Lehmann, P., Chewpreecha, U., Gawel, E., Mercure, J.-F., Pollitt, H., & Strunz, S. (2014). EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: Are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable? UFZ Discussion Paper. Leipzig: Helmoltz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.Google Scholar
  34. UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties. Paris: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alistair Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Unnada Chewpreecha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Francois Mercure
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hector Pollitt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Cambridge EconometricsCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource GovernanceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Radboud UniversityNijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations