CO2 CO2 CO2 LCA HAYASHI, Yoshitsugu KATO, Hirokazu UENO, Yoichi 1 CO2 2 CO2 1 3 2 1 1 8 6 4 2 4 2 % 89 1975 198 199 CO2 CO2 2 CO2 1 1989 35,7 CO2 21 26. 5 1 15 19971 19.4 115. 12.6 117.2 1,5cc1,2kg15 12km/l1,km1 2 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring
CO2 1 1996 3 2 CO2 1 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 4-7 8 CO2 CO2 CO2 9 3CO2 CO2 a, b2 a a1 a2 a3 a4 b a 3 ELC-CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 3
(A) (B) t t1 CO2 (D) ELC-CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2Life Cycle CO2 :LC- CO2 Life Cycle AssessmentLCA CO2 CO2LC-CO2 CO2Extended Life Cycle CO2 : ELC-CO2 1 CO2 421991 11 4 4.1 4 CO2 3 ELC-CO2 CO2 CO2 4.2 Morisugi et al. 7 4 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring
a t 1 2 3 1997 C, 97 C1, 97 C2, 97 C3, 97 Ca, 97 1998 C, 98 C1, 98 C2, 98 C3, 98 Ca, 98 1999 C, 99 C1, 99 C2, 99 C3, 99 Ca, 99 2 C, C1, C2, C3, Ca, 21 C, 1 C1, 1 C2, 1 C3, 1 Ca, 1 a 1t ac a,t t+1c (a+1),(t+1) t-1a-1 L a,t 1 C a,t C,(t-a) S a,t 2 L A B CO2 1,cc 1,1cc1,5cc1,51cc2,cc 2,1cc4 12 4 13 14 a a a a (A) 2 L 3 U 1 3 U 2 U 2 U 1 4 X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 B 2 1988 6 12 15), 16) Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 5
1,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc.94.677 1.12 2.97 (3.6) (2.2) (3.) (9.3) -5.54-2.76-1.16 -.647 X1 (-3.5) (-2.) (-1.2) (-1.9) X2 X3 X4 R 2-12.8-1.9-6.6-2.93 (-21.1) (-2.) (-17.5) (-17.2) 14.2 - - 1.6 (.4) - - (.8) -.151 -.471 -.11 -.453 (-1.6) (-.5) (-.7) (-3.9).79.74.7.78 144 144 142 124 t GDP B X 2 1 61 911 19819941 3X 2 t X 3 X 2 X 1 t 2,cc 5 1,5cc 1 21 CO2 (B) 4 A 4 5 5 P i U i i 1<1,cc> 2<1,5cc>3<2,cc> 4<2,cc> 5U i 1 1.9.9.8.7.6 198 1982 1984 1986 1988.8.7.6 198 1982 1984 1986 1988.5.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 15cc 6 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring
X1 X2 X3 R 2 P 4 P 1, P 2, P 3 6 6ln(P 4 / Pi) U 4 Ui 7 X 1 X 2 X 3 198199412 4 1989 19891992 X 2 X 1 65 X 3 t 6.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 P4/P1 P4/P2 P4/P3 27.9 2.42 1.38 (12.6) (4.2) (8.2) -9.87-1.22 -.495 (-4.3) (-1.2) (-1.1) -59.2-17.9-24.5 (-3.7) (-2.9) (-12.7) -73.2-11.5 - (-.2) (-.5) - 2cc 15cc 1cc 1979 1982 1988 1991 1994.96.96.99 12 12 12 t 2cc 1989 4.3 (C) a b a 1981 1989 -.23 17 t P t, t L t P t +1 t +1 L t +1 8 L t+1 =1+.23(1-P t+1 /P t )L t 8 4.4 CO2 (D) ELC-CO2 aelc-co2 ELC-CO2 18 19 2 CO2 C 1 [km/] [km/l] CO2CO2 2 ELC-CO2 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 7
Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 8 b 1 1986 AT MTAT/MT AT 21998.5 18.5 cco2 LCACO2 CO2 Embodied 18 CO2 LC-CO2 1 2/3 1CO2 LCA CO2 5 5.1 1989CO2 CO2 1 21989 CO2 1GDP 21 GDPGDP199294 94 1994 941.35 7abLC- CO2c 1989 CO2211998 1 4 3 2 5 7 6 198 199 2 25 21 1,cc 2,cc 1,5cc 2,cc % a 2 1 3 4 5 198 199 2 25 21 CO21t-C blc-co2 8% CO2 CO2 2 4 6 1 8 12 198 199 2 25 21 c 1%
Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 9 19912,cc 214 1989 2,cc 2,cc21 CO2 8 1 5.2 CO2 1 1 1 1 11 1 8 21 1LC-CO29 1 1 4.98 a 1 4 3 2 5 7 6 % 2,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 198 199 2 25 21 a 198 199 2 b 25 21 198 199 2 25 21 c 1,cc 1,cc 1,cc 1 4 3 2 5 7 6 % 1 4 3 2 5 7 6 % 21-5 -2-3 -4 1-1 1CO2% a 1,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc b c -5-2 -3-4 1-1 1,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc -5-2 -3-4 1-1 1,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc 1CO2% 1CO2%
% CO21t-C 5 1 2,cc 2,cc 2,cc 8 4 6% 8 8% 6 2,cc 3 7% 6 4 2 CO2 4 1,5cc 2 2,cc 1 CO2 2 1,cc 198 199 2 25 21 198 199 2 25 21 198 199 2 25 21 a blc-co2 c 2,cc1,5cc CO2 9 a CO2 2 1 15.8 b2,cc2,cc 1,5cc CO29 b CO2 1.3 CO2 3 1 2.68 c CO29 c 8 4 3 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 5.11989 5.3 [] 2,cc2 [] 1,5cc2 [] 2 [][] 111 [] 2,cc2 1 a 2,cc 1 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring
% CO21t-C 5 1 8 1,5cc 1,5cc 1,5cc 4 8 2,cc 2% 13% 1,5cc 6 3 6 23% 4 2 CO2 4 2 2,cc 1 CO2 2 1,cc 198 199 2 25 21 198 199 2 25 21 198 199 2 25 21 a blc-co2 c 23198 2,cc 1,5cc CO21 b 21 CO2 6CO2 1 c 21 8 [] 1,5cc2 11 a 2,cc2,cc 1,5cc21 8CO2 11 b21co2 25 CO25 2 11 c 21 13 []2 21CO2 13 CO2 1,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2,cc.5 1. 2.47 2.95 %.5.7 1.2 1.4 2% 1.2 2% 5.4 CO2 CO2 5 CO2 2 1,cc1,5cc 1.52 2 CO2 12 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 11
2,cc 2,cc 1,5cc CO2 LC-CO2 ELC-CO2 213 1992 6 CO2 CO2 1 2LC-CO2 CO2 3CO2 1 1.35 CO2 2 3CO2 4 Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 12 3% 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 198 199 2 25 21 1,cc 2,cc 1,5cc 2,cc 2 1 3 4 5 198 199 2 25 21 CO2 CO2 1 5 15 2 25 198 199 2 25 21 % CO21t-C
5CO2 3 1 [1997], MOBILITY, No.17. 2 [] Vol.23. 3[1997]. 4Sterner, T., C. Dahl and M. Franzen[1992], Gasoline tax Policy, carbon emissions and the environment, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol.39. 5Bunch, D.S., M.Bradley, T.S.Golob, R.Kitamura and G.P. Occhiuzzo[1993], Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California : A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project, Transportation Research, Vol.27A3. 6Koopman, G.J.[], Policies to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in Europe -a partial equilibrium analysis, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol.42. 7Morisugi, H. and E. Ohno[1996],NOx reduction effects of the policy to reduce diesel automibiles and its influence on price changes, Y. Hayashi and J.Royeds., Transport, land-use and the environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 8Hayashi, Y., K.Button and P. Nijkampeds.[1999], The Environment and Transport,Environment Analysis and Policyseries, Edward Elgar. 9[198] 1[1998] Vol.333. 11[1994]. 12[1976-1996]. 13[1986-1997]. 14 [1968-1994]. 15)[199] 16[1992] 17 [] CO2 No.17. 18[1993] CO2 9. 19[1996] 8: LCA Vol.6No.4. 2[1997], Vol.25. 21 91. Analyzing the Effects on CO2 Emission of Taxation Stages of Car Purchase, Ownership and Use : Modeling of Car Age/Type Cohort and Structure of Purchase/Owning/Driving Condition of Vehicle By Yoshitsugu HAYASHI, Hirokazu KATO and Yoichi UENO This study aims at constructing a tool to examine and provide the information of changes in car market configuration, life cycle CO2 emission from automobile transport and tax revenues due to taxation policies. In order to quantitatively estimate the effects, a model system which chases the car cohort by engine class and age is developed. It contains models which represent economic behaviors when the tax rates are changed in the stages of purchasing, owning and using of cars. As this model system can forecast the amount of existing cars by engine class and age, it makes possible to examine the effects on reducing CO2 emissions due to the balance of rates between each stage of taxation. Key Words ; global warming, car-related tax, incentive effects, cohort model, life cycle assessment (LCA) Vol.2 No.1 1999 Spring 13