This paper contains a consideration of the recent arguments in favour of adopting ‘anticipate and prevent’ or ‘proactive’ energy — environment policy strategies, in place of the ‘reactive’ strategies that are a feature of many current approaches to policymaking in this area. The roles that energy — environment modelling might play in investigating alternative scenarios and proactive policy strategies are then examined. The focus is on the advantages and disadvantages of using Input — Output analysis and related mathematical programming techniques to provide information for the policymaking process. Of course, Input — Output analysis is neither the only nor the ideal approach to energy — environment modelbuilding. However, despite acknowledged conceptual and practical limitations of applying Input — Output analysis in this area, it is suggested there is a case for considering its further application, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom, not least because it enables a general equilibrium approach to be implemented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
• References of interest not cited in text.
2.
AhmadY JDasguptaPMalerK-G (Eds), 1984Environmental Decision-Making, Volume Two (Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks, Kent)
3.
Al-AliH M, 1979, “Input — output analysis of energy requirements: An application to the Scottish economy in 1973”Energy Economics1 (October) 211–218
4.
AyresR U, 1978Resources, Environment and Economics (John Wiley, New York)
5.
BehrensA, 1984, “Energy and output implications of income redistribution in Brazil”Energy Economics6 (April) 110–116
6.
BullardC WIIIHerendeenR A, 1977, “The energy cost of goods and services: An Input — Output analysis for the USA, 1963 and 1967”, in Energy Analysis Ed. ThomasJ A G (IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford, Surrey) pp 71–81
7.
Buhner-ThomasV, 1982Input — Output Analysis in Developing Countries (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
8.
CaslerSWilburS, 1984, “Energy Input — Output analysis: A simple guide”Resources and Energy6187–201
9.
CommonM S, 1983, “The IIED industrial energy conservation programme: An order of magnitude assessment”Energy Economics5 (October) 232–236
10.
CommonM S, 1985, “The distributional implications of higher energy prices in the UK”Applied Economics17421–436
11.
CommonM SMcPhersonP, 1981, “The energy intensities of commodities: 1968 and 1974”, University of Stirling Discussion Papers in Economics, Finance and Investment; available from University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland
12.
CommonM SMcPhersonP, 1982, “A note on energy requirements: Calculations using the 1968 and 1974 UK Input — Output tables”Energy Policy4 (March) 42–48
13.
CSO, 1983Input — Output Tables for the United Kingdom 1979Central Statistical Office, business monitor PA 1004 (HMSO, London)
14.
CSO, 1988Input — Output Tables for the United Kingdom 1984Central Statistical Office (HMSO, London)
15.
CumberlandJ HStramB N, 1976, “Empirical results from application of Input — Output models to environment problems”, in Advances in Input — Output Analysis Eds PolenskeK RSkolkaJ V (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA) pp 365–382
16.
DalyH, 1968, “On economics as a life science”Journal of Political Economy76392–406
17.
DentonR V, 1977, “The energy cost of goods and services: An Input — Output analysis for the Federal Republic of Germany, 1967”, in Energy Analysis Ed. ThomasJAG (IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford, Surrey) pp 82–87
18.
ECE, 1984Air Pollution Studies 1. Air-Borne Sulphur Pollution: Effects and ControlEconomic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York
19.
FisherA C, 1981Resource and Environmental Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
20.
FørsundF R, 1985, “Input — output models, national economic models, and the environment”, in Handbook of Natural Resource Economics, Volume 1 Eds KneeseA VSweeneyJ L (North-Holland, Amsterdam) chapter 8, pp 325–341
21.
FørsundF RStromS, 1974, “Industrial structure, growth and residual flows”, in The Management of Water Quality and the Environment Eds RothenbergJ GHeggieI G (Macmillan, London) pp 21–69
22.
FreemanAMIII, 1979The Benefits of Environmental Improvement (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
23.
FreemanA MIII, 1985, “Methods for assessing the benefits of environmental programs”, in Handbook of Natural Resource Economics, Volume 1 Eds KneeseA VSweeneyJ L (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 223–270
24.
GilgA, 1986, “Environmental policies in the United Kingdom”, in Environmental Policies: An International Review Ed. ParkC C (Croom Helm, Andover, Hants) chapter 5
25.
HarrisC GMcConnellV DCumberlandJ H, 1984, “A model for forecasting the economic and environmental impact of energy policy”Energy Economics6 (July) 167–176
26.
HawdonD, 1986, “Linear programming, shadow prices and environmental taxes”, SEEDS-31, Surrey Energy Economics discussion paper, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, England; to appear in GosslingW F (Ed.) (1989, forthcoming) The Greenhouse Effect, the Environment and Input — Output Analysis (Input — Output Publishing Company, c/o Roy Field and Company, First Floor, 2 Battery Green Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR32 1DE)
27.
HerendeenR A, 1974, “Use of Input — Output analysis to determine the energy cost of goods and services”, in Energy: Demand, Conservation and Institutional Problems Ed. MacrakisM S (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
28.
HochICarsonR T, 1984An Energy-Oriented Input — Output Model (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
29.
HopeCOwensS, 1986, “Research policy and review 10. Frameworks for studying energy and the environment”Environment and Planning A18851–864
30.
HufschmidtM MHymanE L (Eds), 1982Economic Approaches to Natural Resource and Environmental Quality Analysis (Tycooly International, Dublin)
31.
HughesG A, 1984, “The impact of fuel taxes in Thailand”, World Bank staff working paper (The World Bank, Washington, DC)
32.
HughesG A, 1985a, “The incidence of fuel taxes: A comparative study of three countries”, DP-13, discussion papers series, Department of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
33.
HughesG A, 1985b, “Fuel prices, taxes and the distribution of income in Thailand”, DP-14, discussion papers series, Department of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
34.
HughesG A, 1985c, “Substitution effects and the impact of fuel taxes in Thailand”, DP-15, discussion papers series, Department of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
35.
HughesG A, 1986a, “The impact of fuel taxes in Tunisia”, mimeograph, available from Department of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
36.
HughesG A, 1986b, “Substitution and the impact of transport taxation in Tunisia”, mimeograph, available from Department of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
37.
IDS, 1984Scottish Input — Output Table in 1979five volumes (Industry Department for Scotland, Scottish Office, Edinburgh)
38.
IsardWChoguillC LKissinJSeyforthR HTatlockR, 1972Economic — Ecologic Analysis for Regional Development (The Free Press, New York)
39.
JamesD E, 1982, “General equilibrium modelling of environmental damage: Energy use and combustion emissions in Australia”, in Economic Approaches to Natural Resource and Environmental Quality Analysis Eds HufschmidtM LHymanE L (Tycooly International, Dublin) pp 124–145
40.
JamesD E, 1985, “Environmental economics, industrial process models, and regional residuals management models”, in Handbook of Natural Resource Economics, Volume 1 Eds KneeseAVSweeneyJ L (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 271–324
41.
JamesD EJansenH M AOpschoorJ B, 1978Economic Approaches to Environmental Problems (Elsevier, Amsterdam)
42.
JamesD EMusgroveA R de LStocksK J, 1986, “Integration of an economic Input — Output model and a linear programming technological model for energy systems analysis”Energy Economics (April) pp 99–112
43.
JonesM, 1989, “The potential of decision analysis as a means of integrating the environment into energy policy decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A21.
44.
Jones-LeeM W (Ed.), 1982The Value of Life and Safety (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
45.
Jones-LeeM WHammertonMPhillipsP R, 1985, “The value of safety: Results of a national sample survey”Economic Journal9549–72
46.
KetkarK W, 1984, “Environmental protection policies and the structure of the U.S. economy”Applied Economics16231–256
47.
KneeseA VSweeneyJ L (Eds), 1985Handbook of Natural Resource Economics, Volume 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
48.
KneeseAAyresR VD'ArgeR, 1970Resources for the Future: Economics and the Environment (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
49.
KohnR E, 1975, “Input — output analysis and air pollution control”, in Economic Analysis of Environmental Problems Ed. MillsE S (National Bureau of Economic Research, New York) Reprinted in Environment Decision-making, Volume Two (1984) Eds AhmedY JDasguptaPMalerK-G (Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks, Kent) pp 324–358
50.
• LeeK-S, 1982, “A generalized Input — Output model of an economy with environmental protection”Review of Economics and Statistics64466–473
LeontiefW, 1970a, “Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: An Input — Output approach”Review of Economics and Statistics52262–277. Reprinted in LeontiefW, 1977Essays in Economics, II (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) and LeontiefW, 1986Input — Output Economicssecond edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
53.
LeontiefW, 1970b, “The dynamic inverse”, in Contributions to Input — Output Analysis Eds CarterA PBrodyA (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 17–46. Reprinted in LeontiefW, 1977Essays in Economics, II (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) and LeontiefW, 1986Input — Output Economicssecond edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
54.
LeontiefW, 1973, “National income, economic structure and environmental externalities”, in Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume 38: The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance Ed. MossM (National Bureau of Economic Research, New York) pp 565–576. Reprinted in LeontiefW, 1977Essays in Economics, II (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) and LeontiefW, 1986Input — Output Economicssecond edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
55.
LeontiefW, 1974, “Structure of the world economy: Outline of a simple Input — Output formulation”American Economic Review64823–834. Reprinted in LeontiefW, 1986Input — Output Economics (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
56.
• LeontiefW, 1977Essays in Economics, II (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
MiyazawaK, 1976Input — Output Analysis and the Structure of Income Distribution (Springer, Berlin)
67.
MüllerF, 1979Energy and Environment in Interregional Input — Output Models (Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, MA)
68.
NEDO, 1974The Increased Cost of Energy—Implications for UK IndustryNational Economic Development Office (HMSO, London)
69.
NEDO, 1975aThe Increased Cost of Energy—Suplementary CalculationsNational Economic Development Office (HMSO, London)
70.
NEDO, 1975bPrice Propagation in an Input — Output Model—Determining the Implications of Higher Energy Costs for Industrial PricesNational Economic Development Office (HMSO, London)
71.
OECD, 1981The Costs and Benefits of Sulphur Oxide ControlOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, Paris)
72.
OECD, 1985Environment and EconomicsOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, Paris)
73.
OECD, 1987Energy and Cleaner Air: Costs of Reducing EmissionsOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, Paris)
74.
ParkS, 1982, “An Input — Output framework for assessing energy consumption”Energy Economics14105–110
PearceD W, 1986, “Efficiency and distribution in corrective mechanism for environmental: Externality”, chapter 2 in Distributional Conflicts in Environmental Resource Policy Eds SchnaibergAWattsNZimmermanK (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) chapter 2, pp 15–37
77.
PearceD W, 1989, “Energy policy and environmental policy in the UK”, in Energy Policies in an Uncertain World Ed. PearsonP J G (Macmillan, London) chapter 6
78.
PearceD WNashC A, 1981The Social Appraisal of Projects (Macmillan, London)
79.
PearsonP J G, 1984, “Energy policy, environment and income distribution in LDCs: An Input — Output approach”, SEEDS-15, Surrey energy economics discussion paper, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, England
80.
PearsonP J G, 1986, “Input — output analysis and air pollution”, SEEDS-30, Surrey energy economics discussion paper, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey. To appear in GosslingW F (Ed.), 1989The Greenhouse Effect, the Environment and Input — Output Analysis (Input — Output Publishing Company, Lowestoft) forthcoming
81.
PearsonP J G (Ed.), 1989Energy Policies in an Uncertain World (Macmillan, London)
82.
PetersonF M, 1975, “Comment” [on KohnR E, 1975, in Economic Analysis of Environmental Problems (National Bureau of Economic Research, New York)] reprinted in AhmadY JDasguptaPMalerK-G, 1984Environmental Decisionmaking, Volume Two (Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks, Kent)
83.
ReardonW A, 1973, “Input — output analysis of U.S. energy consumption”, in Energy Modelling Ed. SearlM F (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
84.
RheeJ JMiranowskiJ A, 1984, “Determination of income, production and employment under pollution control: An Input — Output approach”Review of Economics and Statistics66146–150
85.
RichardsonJ JWattsN S, 1985, “National policy styles and the environment: Britain and West Germany compared”, DP-85-16, International Institute for Environment and Society, Berlin
86.
RobisonH D, 1985, “Who pays for industrial pollution abatement?”Review of Economics and Statistics67702–706
87.
StevensP, 1987Energy Demand: Prospects and Trends (Macmillan, London)
88.
VictorP A, 1972Pollution: Economy and Environment (Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
89.
WrightD J, 1975, “The natural resource requirements of commodities”Applied Economics731–39
