Influence of Different Emission Reduction Policies on Carbon Emission Tax: Analysis Based on Peak Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Neutral Targets
-
摘要: “30·60”碳排放目标日益成为我国经济发展的硬约束。利用GTAP-E模型，设置发达经济体仅对自身征收碳税、发达经济体对自身征收碳税并对中国征收碳关税、发达经济体与中国征收同等碳税以及发达经济体与中国征收差异化碳税四种政策情景，分析不同减排政策下各经济体的宏观经济、居民福利和碳排放影响，据此探讨中国主动采取成本公平性原则的差异化碳税政策应对发达经济体碳关税威胁的可行性。研究表明，发达经济体征收碳关税，在减少碳排放和防止碳泄漏方面作用非常有限，容易造成“双损”局面，不是一种有效的减排政策；发达经济体与中国征收同等碳税，造成中国实际GDP、居民福利大幅下降，经济持续衰退，不能有效应对发达经济体碳关税威胁；发达经济体与中国征收差异化碳税，会使全球碳排放量大幅下降，且中国实际GDP、居民福利下降幅度得到有效控制，因此是应对发达经济体碳关税威胁的有效政策。Abstract: "30.60" carbon dioxide emission target has increasingly become a hard constraint on China's economic development. By setting four policy scenarios that comprise of the developed economies levying domestic carbon tax, the developed economies levying domestic carbon tax and carbon tariffs of imported products from China, the developed economies and China levying the same carbon tax and the differentiated carbon tax policy implemented in China and the developed economies, the paper analyzes the impact of the macro economy, the welfare of the residents and carbon emissions under four policy scenarios using GTAP-E model, then discusses whether the action that China will take the initiative to reduce dioxide emissions on the cost fairness principle can be a solution to the threat of carbon taxes and carbon tariffs threat in the developed economies. The results show that carbon tariffs are limited in reducing carbon emissions and preventing carbon leakage and easy to cause a "double loss" situation, which is not an effective emission reduction policy; the developed economies and China levying the same carbon tax result in a substantial decline in China's real GDP and social welfare, which cannot effectively cope with the threat of carbon taxes and carbon tariffs threat in the developed economies; the differentiated carbon tax policy implemented in China and the developed economies which cause the global carbon emissions falling sharply and China's real GDP and social welfare declining gently, can be the choice of tackling carbon taxes and carbon tariffs threat.
-
表 1 中国各行业出口至美欧日发达经济体的碳关税等值税率
吨/美元, % 行业 E C △tms 农业 0.000 072 0.000 415 1.56 煤炭 — — — 原油 — — — 天然气 — — — 成品油 — — — 电力 — — — 食品加工业 0.000 067 0.000 639 2.35 纺织服装业 0.000 043 0.000 851 3.07 木材加工业 0.000 052 0.000 795 3.15 造纸印刷业 0.000 152 0.001 226 4.90 化学橡胶及塑料制品业 0.000 174 0.001 358 5.29 非金属矿物制品业 0.000 616 0.001 858 7.17 金属冶炼加工业 0.000 458 0.002 151 8.55 金属制品业 0.000 084 0.001 659 6.48 交通运输设备制造业 0.000 029 0.000 937 3.68 通信电子设备制造业 0.000 010 0.000 666 2.65 机器设备制造业 0.000 028 0.001 012 3.99 其他制造业 0.000 019 0.000 603 2.37 服务业 0.000 097 0.000 674 2.70 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同减排政策对全球宏观经济的影响
百万美元, % 变量 S1 S2 S3 S4 pcgdswld 0.603 2 0.310 7 0.418 4 0.524 5 pxwwld 0.436 9 0.518 1 0.857 1 0.572 5 qxwwld -0.147 5 -0.493 3 -0.061 5 -0.112 2 rorg -1.615 6 -1.671 1 -2.36 -1.852 8 walras 0 0 0 0 WEV -84 316.53 -96 070.49 -147 368.23 -96 671.45
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 不同减排政策对各经济体实际GDP的影响
% 地区 S1 S2 S3 S4 发达经济体 -0.241 4 -0.251 9 -0.227 1 -0.237 2 中国 0.056 1 -0.102 0 -0.963 5 -0.160 5 其他经济体 0.023 1 0.039 1 0.047 9 0.031 2 全球 -0.118 3 -0.134 5 -0.206 1 -0.135 3
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 不同减排政策对各经济体居民福利的影响
百万美元 地区 S1 S2 S3 S4 发达经济体 -104 032.88 -86 869.77 -73 470.79 -94 888.75 中国 13 055.66 -25 091.50 -87 804.96 -11770.73 其他经济体 6 639.85 15 870.15 13 907.46 9 987.95 全球 -84 316.53 -96 070.49 -147 368.23 -96 671.45
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 不同减排政策对各经济体碳排放的影响
% 地区 S1 S2 S3 S4 发达经济体 -19.596 0 -19.551 0 -19.503 3 -19.584 5 中国 0.058 0 0.004 9 -39.502 7 -17.342 1 其他经济体 0.459 3 0.474 9 0.515 6 0.458 3 全球 -6.481 2 -6.472 2 -16.362 7 -10.849 1 碳泄漏率 3.031 7 2.922 7 1.279 2 1.693 2
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 发达经济体与中国实施不同减排政策的影响比较
经济环境影响 发达经济体 中国 S2 S4 S2 S4 实际GDP × √ √ × 居民福利 √ × × √ 碳排放 — — × √ 碳泄漏率 × √ × √ 全球碳排放 × √ × √ 注：—表示减排政策差别不大，×表示较劣的减排政策，√表示较优的减排政策。
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 GTAP-E模型敏感性分析结果
百万美元, % 影响 地区 30美元/吨 60美元/吨 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S4 实际GDP 发达经济体 -0.177 4 -0.182 1 -0.162 6 -0.171 9 -0.374 3 -0.394 7 -0.358 7 -0.368 9 中国 0.029 9 -0.078 3 -0.703 3 -0.113 2 0.081 0 -0.144 9 -1.476 0 -0.261 9 其他经济体 0.018 0 0.032 8 0.039 7 0.026 4 0.026 2 0.049 1 0.061 5 0.038 2 全球 -0.087 8 -0.096 1 -0.146 6 -0.095 8 -0.188 8 -0.213 5 -0.326 9 -0.217 1 居民福利 发达经济体 -83 074.08 -64 028.86 -56 863.5 -72 918.55 -153 025.43 -125 275.86 -107 923.23 -139 086.08 中国 9 965.13 -19 364.76 -61 065.84 -7 957.79 19 022.6 -39 233.42 -139 399.3 -18 298.2 其他经济体 5 843.59 12 762.11 11 225.46 7 008.96 9 832.26 22 903.48 19 448.75 14 653.57 全球 -67 265.36 -70 631.51 -106 703.88 -73 867.38 -124 170.57 -141 605.8 -227 873.78 -142 730.71 碳排放 发达经济体 -16.713 3 -16.640 7 -16.609 8 -16.684 2 -23.807 7 -23.768 3 -23.669 0 -23.794 9 中国 0.037 5 0.002 8 -33.737 3 -13.695 2 0.080 1 0.025 1 -47.928 6 -23.535 0 其他经济体 0.255 2 0.264 4 0.310 3 0.251 0 0.957 6 0.906 1 0.976 7 0.935 4 全球 -5.585 9 -5.566 1 -14.014 7 -9.028 3 -7.708 1 -7.729 5 -19.716 0 -13.646 5 碳泄漏率 -1.991 0 -1.912 1 -0.894 7 -1.120 8 -5.057 0 -4.635 9 -1.979 8 -2.718 8
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] HOERNER J A, MULLER F. Carbon taxes for climate protection in a competitive world[D]. Maryland: University of Maryland College, 1996. [2] BIERMANN F, BROHM R. Implementing the Kyoto protocol without the USA: the strategic role of energy tax adjustments at the border[J]. Climate Policy, 2004, 4(3): 289-302. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2004.9685526 [3] VEEL P E. Carbon tariffs and the WTO: an evaluation of feasible policies[J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, 12(3): 749-800. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgp031 [4] ASSELT H V, BREWER T. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU[J]. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(1): 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.061 [5] ROCCHI P, SERRANO M, ROCA J, et al. Border carbon adjustments based on avoided emissions: addressing the challenge of its design[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018, 145: 126-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.003 [6] 谢来辉. 欧盟应对气候变化的边境调节税: 新的贸易壁垒[J]. 国际贸易问题, 2008(2): 65-71. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GJMW200802013.htm [7] LOCKWOOD B, WHALLEY J. Carbon motivated border tax adjustments: old wine in green bottles?[J]. World Economy, 2010, 33(6): 810-819. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01285.x [8] FOURE J, GUIMBARD H, MONJON S. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: what would be the cost for the European Union?[J]. Energy Economics, 2016, 54: 349-362. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.11.021 [9] ZHANG Z, ZHU K, HEWINGS G J D. The effects of border-crossing frequencies associated with carbon footprints on border carbon adjustments[J]. Energy Economics, 2017, 65: 105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.017 [10] ISMER R, NEUHOFF K. Border tax adjustments: a feasible way to address nonparticipation in emission trading[J]. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 2004, 2(2): 1-32. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=EE28367E4B3D052295E56E3198A416B9?doi=10.1.1.387.6903&rep=rep1&type=pdf [11] BHAGWATI J, MAVROIDIS P C. Is action against US exports for failure to sign Kyoto Protocol WTO-legal?[J]. World Trade Review, 2007, 6(2): 299-310. doi: 10.1017/S1474745607003291 [12] SYUNKOVA A. WTO-compatibility of four categories of U. S climate change policy[G]. Washington: National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), 2007. [13] MOORE M O. Implementing carbon tariffs: a fool's errand?[J]. The World Economy, 2011, 34(10): 1679-1702. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01406.x [14] MCKIBBIN, WARWICK J, WILCOXEN, et al. The economic and environmental effects of border tax adjustments for climate policy[M]//Brookings Trade Forum. Washington: Brooking Institution Press, 2009. [15] GROS D. Global welfare implications of carbon border taxes[G]. CEPS Working Document No. 315, 2009. [16] SPRINGMANN M. A look inwards: carbon tariffs versus internal improvements in emissions-trading systems[J]. Energy Economics, 2012, 34(2): 228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.039 [17] EYLAND T, ZACCOUR G. Carbon tariffs and cooperative outcomes[J]. Energy Policy, 2014, 65(5): 718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.043 [18] MCKIBBIN W J, MORRIS A C, WILCOXEN P J, et al. The role of border carbon adjustments in a US carbon tax[J]. Climate Change Economics, 2018, 9(1): 184-191. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2983514 [19] M HVBLER. Can carbon based import tariffs effectively reduce carbon emissions?[J]. Kiel Working Papers, 2009, 50(1): 315-327. http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.econstor.eu%2Fbitstream%2F10419%2F30041%2F1%2F618291318.pdf;h=repec:zbw:ifwkwp:1565 [20] 曲如晓, 吴洁. 论碳关税的福利效应[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2011(4): 37-42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2011.04.006 [21] 樊纲. 不如我们自己先征碳关税[J]. 资源再生, 2009(9): 40-41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSZS200909015.htm [22] 张沁, 李继峰, 张亚雄. "十二五"时期我国面临的国际环境壁垒及应对策略——征收碳出口税的可行性分析[J]. 国际贸易, 2010(11): 21-24. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GJMY201011008.htm [23] 夏先良. 碳关税、低碳经济和中关贸易再平衡[J]. 国际贸易, 2009(11): 37-45. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GJMY200911009.htm [24] 崔连标, 朱磊, 范英. 碳关税背景下中国主动减排策略可行性分析[J]. 管理科学, 2013(1): 101-111. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0334.2013.01.010 [25] BURNIAUX J M, TRUONG T. GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model[G]. GTAP Technical Papers, 2002. [26] MCDOUGALL R A, GOLUB A A. GTAP-E: a revised energy-environmental version of the GTAP model[G]. GTAP Research Memoranda, 2007. [27] 沈可挺, 李钢. 碳关税对中国工业品出口的影响——基于可计算一般均衡模型的评估[J]. 财贸经济, 2010(1): 75-82. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CMJJ201001013.htm [28] 鲍勤, 汤铃, 杨列勋. 美国征收碳关税对中国的影响: 基于可计算一般均衡模型的分析[J]. 管理评论, 2010 (6): 25-33. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZWGD201006007.htm [29] 黄凌云, 李星. 美国拟征收碳关税对我国经济的影响——基于GTAP模型的实证分析[J]. 国际贸易问题, 2010(11): 93-98. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GJMW201011013.htm [30] FISCHER C, FOX A K. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2012, 64(2): 199-216. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.01.005 [31] BAO Q, TANG L, ZHANG Z X, et al. Impacts of border carbon adjustments on China's sectoral emissions: simulations with a dynamic computable general equilibrium model[J]. China Electronic Review, 2013, 24: 77-94. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X12001198 [32] LUAN H, YANG J. Emission reduction and economic impacts of US carbon tariffs on China: based on CGE model analysis[J]. Applied Mechanics & Materials, 2013, 291-294: 1370-1374. http://www.scientific.net/AMM.291-294.1370 -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(7)
计量
- 文章访问数: 458
- HTML全文浏览量: 329
- PDF下载量: 32
- 被引次数: 0