Economic and environmental impacts of raising revenues for climate finance from public sources

被引:8
作者
Bohringer, Christoph [1 ]
Schneider, Jan [1 ]
Springmann, Marco [2 ]
机构
[1] Carl von Ossietzky Univ Oldenburg, Dept Econ, Ammerlander Heerstr 114-118, D-26129 Oldenburg, Germany
[2] Univ Oxford, Oxford Martin Sch, Nuffield Dept Populat Hlth, Oxford, England
关键词
climate finance; computable general equilibrium; green climate fund; fossil fuel subsidies‌ CARBON TARIFFS; DEMAND; POLICY; OIL;
D O I
10.1080/14693062.2020.1842719
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In response to anthropogenic climate change, developed countries have committed themselves to raising 100 billion USD a year from 2020 onwards to address the needs of developing countries. In this paper, we investigate the economic consequences and CO2 emission impacts of three options for raising climate funds from public sources in developed countries: (i) CO2 emissions pricing, (ii) an electricity consumption tax, and (iii) the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Using computable general equilibrium analysis, we find that these three options not only induce very different global costs to raise given amounts of climate funds, but also have quite diverging implications for the cost incidence between developed and developing countries. Likewise, the global CO2 emission impacts of alternative fund-raising policies differ significantly. Key policy insights CO2 emission pricing and a tax on electricity consumption in developed countries shift substantial shares of the cost burden for raising climate finance to developing countries, while the removal of fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries leads to welfare gains for developing countries. While CO2 pricing and a tax on electricity consumption lead to positive carbon leakage, i.e. increased emissions in developing countries, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies incentivizes decarbonization of developing economies through higher prices for fossil fuels. From a global cost-effectiveness perspective the removal of subsidies is the least attractive option, but it gains in attractiveness for a policy portfolio when taking into account the cost incidence between developed and developing countries, and also the impact on CO2 emissions in developing countries.
引用
收藏
页码:546 / 562
页数:17
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Aguiar A, 2019, J GLOB ECON ANAL, V4, P1
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2010, Technical Report
  • [3] ARMINGTON PS, 1969, INT MONET FUND S PAP, V16, P159
  • [4] BEA, 2019, BUR EC AN TABL 1 1 9
  • [5] Embodied Carbon Tariffs
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Carbone, Jared C.
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2018, 120 (01) : 183 - 210
  • [6] The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29)
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Balistreri, Edward J.
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2012, 34 : S97 - S110
  • [7] EU climate policy up to 2020: An economic impact assessment
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Loeschel, Andreas
    Moslener, Ulf
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2009, 31 : S295 - S305
  • [8] Böhringer C, 2002, ENVIRON RESOUR ECON, V22, P391, DOI 10.1023/A:1016032424760
  • [9] Carbon Tariffs Revisited
    Bohringer, Christoph
    Muller, Andre
    Schneider, Jan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMISTS, 2015, 2 (04) : 629 - 672
  • [10] Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies
    Branger, Frederic
    Quirion, Philippe
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2014, 99 : 29 - 39