CO 2 abatement targets for APEC economies

Each economy’s CATR is also calculated. Table 11 reports the summary of ESTR based on Equation (7) for each economy. Table 12 shows the percentage of total APEC’s CAT. Table 13 presents the per capita CAT for each economy. Several interesting observations are summarized as follows.

Table 11 Summary of CATR for each APEC economy (1991-2000)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Australia 15.06 16.49 15.93 17.01 14.65 13.24 11.16 10.64 13.05 16.56 Note: (1) The unit is percentage. (2) Scores with a gray background are those reached at the best

efficiency with zero score.

1. The CATR score generally decreases for the APEC economies during the period considered, but the CATR score increases slightly in 2000. As Table 11 shows, except Australia, Canada, and Japan, the APEC economies have become more efficient in CO2 abatement and CO2-reducing efficiency over time. In the late

1990s, they improved their energy efficiency and were closer to the frontier than in the beginning.

2. The developed group includes Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United Sates. The other economies belong to the developing group. Since developed economies could afford to update equipment and apply new technologies, they have lower CATR scores than those in the developing group.

3. The CATR scores of all the Asian economies but four (Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Taiwan) are higher than the average scores during the research period. Neither any of the Central nor the South American economies are efficient CAT economies. However, their CATRs are much lower than the Asian economies under a similar growth level.

4. China has the largest CAT with more than half amount of its current usage even as it owns the highest development growth rate from 1991 to 2000. China can reduce around 54% of the amount of its current CO2 emissions by improving the technology of capture and geological storage of CO2 without reducing the high production level. As Table 12 shows, the CAT of China in 2000 is 409.7 t-C per person by 68% of the total APEC’s CAT. China plays a key role in CO2

abatement and environmental protection in the association of APEC economies.

However, the CATR score decreased from 84% in 1991 down to 54% in 2000.

5. Southeast Asian Economies and South Korea, except for the Philippines, lie on the second high CATR score group. Thailand can reduce around 40% of the amount of its current CO2 emissions in 2000 without reducing the high production level. South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia car reduce more than 30% of it current CO2 emissions. Even for Singapore, its CATR score is 21.98%

which is higher than average. Those economies have to take the responsibility for the global warming and environmental degradation.

Table 12 CO2 abatement target for each APEC economy (1991-2000)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Australia 10.78 12.27 12.17 13.42 11.84 11.38 9.64 9.57 12.27 15.72 Canada 6.45 10.43 12.59 12.69 15.39 16.86 18.17 10.07 9.05 13.48 Chile 4.09 3.44 2.99 0.46 0.06 0.14 0.23 0.09 1.29 1.01 China 575.30 580.83 601.32 618.94 649.60 669.57 603.87 535.31 455.49 409.70 Hong Kong, China 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Indonesia 19.39 20.92 22.57 22.34 15.12 25.45 24.83 18.10 16.87 21.92 Japan 0.00 12.29 29.31 57.85 59.43 60.00 60.34 39.19 39.75 63.98 South Korea 28.15 32.70 37.48 39.42 40.24 43.53 44.06 36.41 35.35 38.13 Malaysia 11.54 12.07 15.34 4.02 7.11 6.68 7.69 8.09 8.30 11.43 Mexico 60.75 62.85 53.63 8.57 11.89 7.90 3.23 1.09 4.03 3.56 New Zealand 0.55 1.02 1.05 1.08 0.68 0.66 0.58 0.13 0.26 0.67 Peru 0.79 0.54 1.07 0.54 0.15 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.11 Philippines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Singapore 4.14 4.20 4.56 5.57 3.08 3.49 4.25 3.57 3.22 3.39 Taiwan 7.27 10.47 20.21 6.81 4.44 2.63 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thailand 15.37 15.19 17.16 17.17 18.86 21.55 23.41 21.21 21.66 22.24 United States 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average 43.80 45.84 48.91 47.58 49.29 51.18 47.13 40.17 35.74 35.61

Note: (1) The unit is millions tons of carbon (Mt-C). (2) Scores with a gray background are those reached at the best efficiency with zero score.

6. Hong Kong, the Philippines, and the United States have the ‘best practice’

among APEC economies and have the complete know-how of production function. They have the lowest CATR rankings with zero over the 1990s among APEC economies. Peru and Taiwan significantly improved their CO2 abatement efficiency in the last three years of the 1990s. Taiwan possesses a CATR value of zero in the latter part of the research period. Peru’s CATR scores are at zero in 1998 and 1999, but then increase slightly in the last year. These economies can share their know-how with others to improve CO2 abatement efficiency in the international association by trade agreement.

7. As Table 11 shows, Australia, Canada, and Japan are the three exceptions among APEC economies with decreasing total-factor CO2 abatement efficiency when CO2 input is considered. They improved their CO2 abatement efficiency in the

middle of the observed period. However, their CATR scores increased in 2000 and were higher than that in 1991. These three developed economies have to face the situation seriously in order to be a part of the APEC economies.

Australia and Canada reject the Kyoto Protocol (the New Scientist website, 2005;

Vedantam, 2005). The decreasing CATR can represent their position and tell the truth what are they really concern to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

8. Japan was on the frontier in 1991, and then the CO2 abatement efficiency decreased with CATR score which is 19.80% higher than the average score in 2000. Its per capita CO2 abatement target is 0.5 t-C per person in 2000 as seen in Table 13. The result may explain why that Japan needs to trade CO2

emissions with China in order to achieving its commitment with the Kyoto Protocol.

Table 13 Per capita CO2 abatement targets for each APEC economies (1991-2000)

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Australia 0.62 0.70 0.69 0.75 0.66 0.62 0.52 0.51 0.65 0.82 Note: The unit is tons of carbon (t-C) per person.

9. The United States is the other economy rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. As the result of this study, the United States is the ‘best practice’ of CO2 abatement. If the reduction of CO2 emission wants to upgrade, government and industry have to invest a lot of cost and research the new technology. Otherwise, the reduction of CO2 emissions may hamper the United States’ economic growth. Under the consideration of real output, the United States has to refuse to approval the Kyoto Protocol.