Club Convergence and Clustering of U.S. State-Level CO 2 Emissions

Transcription

1 Methodological Club Convergence and Clustering of U.S. State-Level CO 2 Emissions J. Wesley Burnett Division of Resource Management West Virginia University Wednesday, August 31, 2013

2 Outline Motivation Methodological 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

3 Outline Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

4 Methodological Problem Statement Research Question Hypothesis Are state-level per-capita CO 2 emissions converging or diverging over time?

5 Emissions Path Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis

6 Methodological Research Question Hypothesis What is convergence? (Galor, 1996) Absolute convergence hypothesis Condition convergence hypothesis Club convergence hypothesis

7 Empirical Analysis Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis Beta Convergence Sigma Convergence Club Convergence

8 Policy relevance Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis U.S. federal government has no climate change policy States have RPSs Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Allocation emission rights to states Per-capita allocation Historical proportional allocation ( grandfathering )

9 Policy Relevance Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis Uncertainty in state-level abatement costs Arguably, the marginal cost of reducing emissions is lower for high emitting states Current policy regimes often ignore the location and dispersion of source of emissions Emissions are penalized at a single permit price In the presence of uncertainty in abatement costs, differentiated policies may improve welfare (Fowlie and Muller, 2013)

10 Methodological Post-Kyoto Regimes Research Question Hypothesis Intensity targets. All regions reduce their greenhouse gas intensity (i.e., GHGs per unit of GDP) at the same rate. Contraction and convergence. Contract GHG emissions in each country so that all per-capita emissions are converging to the same level. Global triptych approach. Derive national targets from bottom-up sectoral targets (such as CO 2 from energy only). Multi-sector convergence approach. Derive national targets from converging per-capita sectoral targets. Multi-stage approach. Regions participate in the commitment regime in four stages, graduating" from one to the next. Equal mitigation cost. Targets are set to distribute economic burden equally over all countries.

11 Outline Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

12 Club convergence Motivation Methodological Research Question Hypothesis 1 Different clubs of states are converging to differing steady-state growth paths of emissions i.e., there are multiple locally stable steady-state equilibria 2 Initial conditions, and other structural characteristics determine club membership

13 Methodological Research Question Hypothesis Per-capita State-level CO 2 Emissions (metric tones per person)

14 Methodological Research Question Hypothesis Per-capita State-level CO 2 Emissions (metric tons per person)

15 Methodological Two-Stage Procedure Data 1 Club convergence analysis 2 Beta convergence analysis

16 Outline Motivation Methodological Data 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

17 Methodological Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Data Carbon dioxide: US Department of Energy Estimates of CO 2 Emissions Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 94.1% of CO 2 CO 2 accounts for 84% of GHGs Data Range: Structural and Non-Structural Characteristics: GDP, Population, CDD, and HDD

18 Methodological Data Estimates of CO 2 CO 2,t α oil E oil t + α coal E coal t + α gas E gas t + α flare E flare t + S t

19 Outline Motivation Methodological Club Convergence 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

20 Methodological log t Test (Philips and Sul, 2007) Club Convergence Define state-level carbon dioxide emissions as: X it = g it + a it, (1) g it systematic component a it represents a transitory component ( ) git + a it X it = µ t = δ it µ t i and t, (2) µ t µ t a common trend component in the panel

21 Methodological Incidental Parameters Problem Club Convergence It is not possible to estimate (2) without imposing ex ante restrictions on δ it and µ t. h it = µ t X it µ t N 1 N i=1 X it µ t δ it = µ t N 1 N i=1 δ. (3) it

22 Methodological Relative transition parameter Club Convergence N σt 2 = N 1 (h it 1) 2 0 as t. (4) i=1

23 Methodological Semi-parametric test Club Convergence Null hypothesis: δ it = δ i + σ i ξ it L(t) t α (5)

24 Null hypothesis Motivation Methodological Club Convergence Given equation (5), the null hypothesis is formulated as H 0 : δ i = δ and α 0 (6) against the alternative H A : δ i δ for some i and/or α < 0. (7)

25 log t Test Motivation Methodological Club Convergence Following Phillips and Sul (2007), we construct a ratio of cross-sectional variation as follows H t = N 1 N i=1 (h it 1) 2, (8) and test the null in context of the following nonparametric regression ( ) H1 log 2 log L(t) = â + ˆb log t + û, (9) H t where L(t) = log(t). The fitted coefficient on log t is ˆb = 2 ˆα, where ˆα is the estimate of α (the speed of convergence) in H 0.

26 Outline Motivation Methodological Club Convergence 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

27 Algorithm Motivation Methodological Club Convergence To determine if certain subgroups of regions (states) converge we employ the following algorithm: 1 Last Observation Ordering 2 Core Group Formation 3 Sieve Individuals for Club Membership 4 Stopping Rule

28 Methodological Aggregate CO 2 Emission Second Stage Figure : Quartiles of Per-Capita CO 2 Emissions in the U.S. ( )

29 Outline Motivation Methodological Second Stage 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

30 Methodological Club Convergence Classification Second Stage Table : Club Convergence Classification for Aggregate Emissions, Initial classification Test of club merger Test of club merger Club One (2) Club One-Three (3) log t t-stat Clubs One-Two (16) log t t-stat log t t-stat Club Two (14) log t t-stat Clubs Two-Three (21) log t t-stat Club Three (7) log t t-stat Note: * Rejection of the null hypothesis of convergence at the 5% level. Numbers in parenthesis represent the number of states in the club.

31 Methodological Club Convergence of U.S. States Second Stage Table : Club Convergence of Per-Capita CO 2 Emissions among U.S. States based upon Initial Classification All States First Second Third Last T Convergent Convergent Convergent Ordering Club Club Club Wyoming S. Carolina Nebraska Missouri Arizona N. Dakota Wisconsin Texas Arkansas Nevada W. Virginia Georgia Ohio N. Carolina Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Maine Kentucky Tennessee Pennsylvania Virginia Montana Arizona Colorado Delaware Indiana Nevada S. Dakota N. Hampshire N. Mexico N. Carolina Illinois Oklahoma Maine Minnesota Iowa Virginia S. Carolina Kansas Delaware Wisconsin Nebraska N. Hampshire Georgia Texas N. Jersey Michigan Alabama Maryland Tennessee Utah Florida Missouri Washington Arkansas Massachusetts Ohio Oregon Mississippi R. Island Pennsylvania Connecticut Colorado California S. Dakota Vermont Illinois Idaho Minnesota New York Notes: The diverging states are Wyoming, N. Dakota, W. Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Montana, Indiana, N. Mexico, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, Alabama, Utah, N. Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, R. Island, Connecticut, California,Vermont, Idaho, and N. York.

32 Methodological Second Stage Figure : Relative Transition Paths ( ) (a) Club One (b) Club Two (c) Club Three

33 Methodological Second Stage Figure : Average Relative Transition Paths of the Final Convergence Clubs ( )

34 Outline Motivation Methodological Second Stage 1 Motivation Research Question Hypothesis 2 Data 3 Methodological Club Convergence 4 Second Stage 5

35 Beta Convergence Motivation Methodological Second Stage In the second stage of our empirical analysis we now estimate β-convergence regressions to ascertain if state-level structural and non-structural factors help determine the growth rate of emissions If so, then such findings will help support the club convergence hypothesis in the first stage

36 Methodological Second Stage Panel data, fixed effects estimator log(y it ) = γ log(y i,t 1 ) + X it β + η t + µ i + ε it γ = e λ τ λ = 1 τ ln(γ),

37 Methodological Regression Results Second Stage Table : Panel Data Convergence Estimates for the Full Sample (U.S., ) Regressors Pooled OLS Fixed Effects LSDVC GMM γ *** *** *** *** (0.0033) (0.0176) (0.0428) (0.0108) Implied λ Structural Factors Income per cap (0.0087) (0.0181) (0.0407) (0.0247) Pop density *** *** *** (0.0011) (0.0079) (0.0538) (0.0120) Percent coal *** *** ** (0.0040) (0.0127) (0.0195) (0.0124) Percent ind * (0.0079) (0.0065) (0.0105) (0.0085) Non-Structural Factors CDD ** * *** (0.0022) (0.0060) (0.0070) (0.0064) HDD *** (0.0022) (0.0132) (0.0145) (0.0147) Constant (0.0784) (0.1750) Number of obs Number of groups R Note: The terms ***, **, and *, denote a statistical significance level of one percent, five percent, and ten percent, respectively.

38 Methodological Second Stage Table : Panel Data Convergence Estimates for the Two Clubs (U.S., ) Club One Club Two Regressors FE LSDVC GMM FE LSDVC GMM γ *** *** *** *** *** (0.1356) (0.1674) (0.1457) (0.0458) (0.0756) (0.0194) Implied λ Structural Factors Income per cap *** *** (0.1936) (0.8809) (0.1926) (0.0278) (0.0164) (0.0349) Pop density *** *** (0.1266) (0.7372) (0.1277) (0.0120) (0.0602) (0.0124) Percent coal ** (0.1281) (0.6240) (0.1380) (0.0402) (0.0348) (0.0147) Percent ind *** (0.3292) (2.2721) (0.3253) (0.0401) (0.0852) (0.0358) Non-Structural Factors CDD (0.0193) (0.1022) (0.0206) (0.0082) (0.0128) (0.0100) HDD (0.0757) (0.3229) (0.0823) (0.0169) (0.0419) (0.0207) Number of obs Number of groups Observations per group R Note: The terms ***, **, and *, denote a statistical significance level of one percent, five percent, and ten percent, respectively.

39 Methodological Concluding Remarks Two-stage procedure to examine the convergence of state-level carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. The results of the club-convergence test in the first stage imply that there are two clubs of states whose emissions are converging to unique steady states levels through time Despite the nice statistical properties of the the club-convergence test, it endogenously groups states according to converging emissions but omits factors that may lead to club formation To overcome this problem we conducted conditional, beta-convergence tests in the second stage in which we tested for beta-convergence across the entire sample and among clubs identified in the first stage

40 Methodological Concluding Remarks Cont d The beta-convergence tests imply that emissions are converging across the entire sample and among the clubs Convergence rates are higher for the individual clubs than for the entire sample which implies multiple regimes of convergence and corroborates the findings within the first stage