Leakage, Welfare, and Cost-Effectiveness of Carbon Policy

Baylis, Kathy; Fullerton, Don; Karney, Daniel H.

doi:10.3386/w18898

Cited by 16 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes, most prominently, leakage to foreign jurisdictions (Fowlie, 2009;Caron et al, 2015), e.g., leakage from the EU ETS to non-EU jurisdictions. It also includes leakage to sectors in the same jurisdiction that are not covered by the carbon-pricing system (Baylis et al, 2013), e.g., leakage from the EU ETS to uncovered sectors such as transport.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overlapping Climate Policies

Perino¹,

Ritz²,

Benthem³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an integrated framework to understand the emissions impact of unilateral overlapping policies within a carbon-pricing system. \Internal carbon leak-age" captures emissions displacement within the system (e.g., due to greater product imports from a neighbouring country). The waterbed effect captures the policy's interaction with the system's overall emissions cap. Current market rules in the reformed EU ETS, California's carbon market and RGGI feature \punctured" waterbeds that allow overlapping policies to affect aggregate emissions. We present simple formulae to estimate internal carbon leakage for different types of policy such as a carbon price floor (perhaps with a border tax adjustment), an energy efficiency program, and renewables support. The sign and magnitude of the climate benefit from an overlapping policy varies widely depending on its design, location and timing. Punctured waterbeds raise the stakes: well-designed overlapping policies can be much more climate-effective but others now backfire. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics Faculty of Economics www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overlapping Climate Policies

Perino¹,

Ritz²,

Benthem³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sectors produce emissions according to an emissions function which is assumed to have constant returns to scale in the inputs to production and we place no restrictions on the structure of the input-output network. We therefore generalise the insights of Baylis et al (2013) and Baylis et al (2014) who pointed out that carbon taxes in some sectors can lead to emissions reductions in other sectors thereby causing "negative leakage". 2,3 The upstream and downstream effects of carbon tax reforms in our model are similar to the structure of technology shock propagation in other models (Shea, 2002, Baqaee, 2018, Huremovic and Vega-Redondo, 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Targeted carbon tax reforms

King

Tarbush

Teytelboym

2019

European Economic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the presence of intersectoral linkages, sector-specific carbon tax changes can have complex general equilibrium effects. In particular, a carbon tax on the emissions of a sector can lead to an increase in aggregate emissions. We analytically characterise how incremental taxes on the emissions of any set of sectors affect aggregate emissions. We show that carbon tax reforms that target sectors based on their position in the production network can achieve a greater reduction in aggregate emissions than reforms that target sectors based on their direct emissions alone. We illustrate the effects of carbon tax reforms by calibrating our intersectoral network model to the economies of two countries.

show abstract

“…A second challenge that emerges when a carbon tax is introduced would be whether a carbon tax decreases competitiveness. Competitiveness effects have become one of the most significant issues when a unilateral carbon tax is introduced ( see Baylis, Fullerton, & Karney, 2013;Dissou and Eyland, 2011;Fischer and Fox, 2012;Rivers, 2010). Political challenges are the most significant difficulties when the government attempts to introduce a carbon tax (Andrew et al, 2010;Jenkins and Karplus, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Policies in Indonesia’s Development Agenda: Why a Carbon Tax is Marginalised

Rakhmindyarto

2020

Proceeding of LPPM UPN "VETERAN" Yogyakarta Conference Series 2020- Political and Social Science Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the results of an exploratory qualitative study based on in-depth interviews involving government executives, politicians, business players, and non-government organisations (NGOs), this paper explores climate policies in Indonesia’s national development agenda, including whether a carbon tax could be one of the national priority policy goals. The results suggest that there is heterogeneity in how Indonesian key stakeholders perceive climate policies in Indonesia’s development agenda. Indonesian stakeholders are cognisant of the adverse impacts of climate change on social, economic, and environmental aspects. They also acknowledge that having clear and sound climate mitigation policies is required to achieve Indonesia’s ambitious GHG emissions reduction target. However, Indonesia’s development policy goals are focusing on economic growth, in particular boosting infrastructure investments, reducing poverty and inequality, and job expansion. This makes climate policies are compromised and has created conflicts between Indonesia’s development agenda and its commitment to deal with climate change issues. Overall, the study finds that climate policies are incompatible with Indonesia’s development agenda, therefore a carbon tax is placed at the bottom of the national policy goals.

show abstract

Leakage, Welfare, and Cost-Effectiveness of Carbon Policy

Cited by 16 publications

References 1 publication

Overlapping Climate Policies

Overlapping Climate Policies

Targeted carbon tax reforms

Climate Policies in Indonesia’s Development Agenda: Why a Carbon Tax is Marginalised

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About