The impact of different GHG reduction scenarios on the economy and social welfare of Thailand using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model

Abstract

Background: The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of Thailand intends to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 to 25% from the projected business as usual level by 2030 with the deployment of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency improvement measures in both the supply and demand sectors. However, in order to contribute towards meeting the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement to stay well below 2°C, ambitious mitigation efforts beyond 2030 are needed. As such, it is necessary to assess the effects of imposing more stringent long-term GHG reduction targets in Thailand beyond the NDC commitment. Methods: This paper analyses the macroeconomic effects of limiting the GHG emissions by using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model on Thailand's economy during 2010 to 2050. Besides the business as usual (BAU) scenario, this study assesses the macroeconomic effects of ten low to medium GHG mitigation scenarios under varying GHG reduction targets of 20 to 50%. In addition, this study also assesses three different peak emission scenarios, each targeting a GHG reduction of up to 90% by 2050, to analyze the feasibility of zero GHG emissions in Thailand to pursue efforts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as considered in the Paris Agreement. Results: According to the BAU scenario, the GHG emissions from the electricity, industry, and transport sectors would remain the most prominent throughout the planning period. The modeling results indicate that the medium to peak emission reduction scenarios could result in a serious GDP loss compared to the BAU scenario, and therefore, the attainment of such mitigation targets could be very challenging for Thailand. Results suggest that the development and deployment of energy-efficient and renewable energy-based technologies would play a significant role not only in minimizing the GHG emissions but also for overcoming the macroeconomic loss and lowering the price of GHG emissions. Conclusions: The results reveal that without a transformative change in the economic structure and energy system of Thailand, the country would have to face enormous cost in reducing its GHG emissions.

Macroeconomic Effects of Energy Efficiency Measures and Carbon Tax in Thailand: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis

“…The methodology to calculate the rebound effects are discussed in detail in Section 2.3. Masui, 2020, 2021;Dai et al, 2012;Dai et al, 2016;Malahayati et al, 2021;Rajbhandari et al, 2019;Tian et al, 2017). Detailed description of MPSGE can be found in GAMS Development Corporation (2023) and Rutherford (1999).…”

“…Like elasticity of substitution, the elasticity of transformation values between exports and domestically supplied goods in this study are referred to the studies of other countries due to unavailability of countryspecific value. The elasticity of transformation value between imported goods and domestically produced goods are both taken to be 2 (Rajbhandari et al, 2019).…”

Ranking EU Climate and Energy Policies

“…However, the USA cannot achieve sustainable long-term development in the long term without additional incentives for green technologies and policies [30]. The link between emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth is also a significant issue in Gulf Cooperation Council countries [31] and Thailand [32].…”

Towards sustainability through the circular economy of plastic packaging waste management in Rayong Province, Thailand

“…Promoting closed-loop recycling and increasing the plastic waste collection rate have been reported to enhance benefits in both economic proportion and environmental reduction of GHG [ 4 , 7 , 16 ]. Like other countries, Thailand promotes plastic waste recycling as one of the strategies to achieve Thailand’s Nationally Determined Contribution (TNDC) of becoming a carbon-neutral society and targets to reduce about 2.0 M tCO 2 eq from waste management in 2050 [ 17 ].…”