Carbon Pricing with Output-Based Subsidies: Impacts on U.S. Industries Over Multiple Time Frames

Abstract

The effects of a carbon price on U.S. industries are likely to change over time as firms and customers gradually adjust to new prices. The effects will also depend on offsetting policies to compensate losers and the number of countries implementing comparable policies. We examine the effects of a $15/ton CO 2 price, including Waxman-Markey-type allocations, on a disaggregated set of industries, over four time horizons-the very-short-, short-, medium-, and long-runs-distinguished by the ability of firms to raise output prices, change their input mix, and reallocate capital. We find that if firms cannot pass on higher costs, the loss in profits in a number of energy-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries will be substantial. When output prices can rise to reflect higher energy costs, the reduction in profits is substantially smaller, and the offsetting policies in H.R. 2454 reduce output and profit losses even more. Over the medium-and long-terms, however, when more adjustments occur, the impact on output is more varied due to general equilibrium effects. We find that the use of the output-based rebates and other allocations in H.R. 2454 can substantially offset the output losses over all four time frames considered. Trade or "competitiveness" effects from the carbon price explain a significant portion of the fall in output for EITE sectors, but in absolute terms the trade impacts are modest and can be reduced or even reversed with the subsidies. The subsidies are less effective, however, in preventing emissions leakage to countries not adopting carbon policies. Roughly half of U.S. trade-related leakage to nonpolicy countries can be explained by changes in the volume of trade and the other half by higher emissions intensities induced by lower world fuel prices.

The Impact on Japanese Industry of Alternative Carbon Mitigation Policies

“…As for the decomposition of the total cost increase, they verify that the source cost increase differs with industry (i.e., some industries face high costs due to direct emissions, whereas others face high indirect and intermediate good costs). More recent work by Adkins et al (2012) updates the earlier work and finds similar impacts.…”

Tax Policies for Clean Manufacturing: Implementing the Green New Deal

“…149 Another study, which looked at a carbon price of $15 per ton of CO 2 , projected the largest leakage rates among manufacturing industries to be for the petroleum and coal products industry (27 percent); the chemicals, rubber, and plastics industries (11 percent); the nonferrous 145 primary metals industry (9 percent); the ferrous metals industry (8 percent); and the nonmetallic mineral products industry (6 percent). 150 The industries with the greatest leakage potential are also those that would face the greatest competitive disadvantage from carbon pricing, if the leakage concern is not addressed. 151 The leakage concern can be ameliorated by using border tax adjustments, in this context called a border carbon adjustment (BCA).…”

Fiscal Policies for Development and Climate Action

“…37. For example, Adkins et al (2012) use both partial and general equilibrium frameworks to study the impacts of unilateral carbon pricing with OBR on U.S. EITE industries over different time frames. They find that OBR would keep output losses about 0.5 percent and virtually eliminate any increase in net imports due to the tax over time.…”