scholarly journals Effective Carbon Prices and Sub-Global Climate Cooperation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goran Dominioni

Scholarly and policy interest in carbon pricing coalitions is growing. Existing research analyzes design features that can increase the environmental effectiveness and political resilience of coalitions centered around carbon taxes and carbon markets (i.e. explicit carbon pricing). This article is the first that analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of building carbon pricing coalitions around effective carbon pricing compared to the standard design that focuses on explicit carbon pricing. Measures of effective carbon prices include carbon prices implemented via carbon taxes, carbon markets, fuel taxes, and fossil fuel subsidies reforms. The article describes four design options to build carbon pricing coalitions - three built on measures of effective carbon pricing and one that focuses exclusively on explicit carbon pricing - and benchmarks them against five criteria. The key results are that building carbon pricing coalitions around effective carbon prices has various advantages over the most common alternative discussed in the literature. These advantages include higher transparency, potential greater breadth and legitimacy of the coalition, and a more substantial involvement of Finance Ministries in climate change mitigation. These advantages might translate in comparable or even higher environmental effectiveness than coalitions that focuses exclusively on explicit carbon pricing.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goran Dominioni

Scholarly and policy interest in carbon pricing coalitions is growing. Existing research analyzes design features that can increase the environmental effectiveness and political resilience of coalitions centered around carbon taxes and carbon markets (i.e. explicit carbon pricing). This article is the first that analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of building carbon pricing coalitions around effective carbon pricing compared to the standard design that focuses on explicit carbon pricing. In this article, measures of effective carbon prices include carbon prices implemented via carbon taxes, carbon markets, fuel taxes, and fossil fuel subsidies reforms. The article describes four design options to build carbon pricing coalitions - three built on measures of effective carbon pricing and one that focuses exclusively on explicit carbon pricing - and benchmarks them against six criteria. The key results are that building carbon pricing coalitions around effective carbon prices has various advantages over the most common alternative discussed in the literature. These advantages include higher transparency, broader participation, higher legitimacy of the coalition, and more substantial involvement of Finance Ministries in climate change mitigation. These advantages might translate in comparable or even higher environmental effectiveness than coalitions that focuses exclusively on explicit carbon pricing.


Significance The most important climate summit since the 1997 Kyoto gathering will open in Paris at end-November, with the goal of producing the first universal binding climate treaty ever drafted. Preparatory talks are progressing slowly on the core document negotiated among countries. However, the recent announcement of the first-ever official climate commitment from China and the growing push for carbon pricing are positive signals that the Paris summit could result not only in an agreement, but in a significant one. Impacts French organisers will accelerate negotiations, set to be intensive, as the first Bonn meeting did not produce the expected result. China's official commitment to climate change mitigation could pave the way for a strong agreement in Paris. Carbon pricing will be discussed and progress in harmonising carbon markets is not excluded anymore.


Author(s):  
Satoshi Kojima ◽  
Kenji Asakawa

Abstract Realizing a decarbonized society in consistent with the Paris Agreement, a fundamental transformation of the entire economic and social system is needed, and not only carbon intensive sectors but also all sectors and all stakeholders including households must be decarbonized. This chapter demonstrates increasing expectations for carbon pricing in Japan in this global policy context. After the review of the global trend of carbon pricing, historical progress of carbon pricing in Japan and the existing nation-wide carbon tax, i.e. the Global Warming Countermeasure Tax, is explained. There are also two sub-national carbon pricing schemes in Japan, Tokyo ETS and Saitama ETS, which are explained in Chaps. 10.1007/978-981-15-6964-7_6 and 10.1007/978-981-15-6964-7_7 respectively, and not focused in this chapter. We examine the claim that Japan has already implemented high level carbon pricing in terms of various forms of energy taxes. Based on the effective carbon rate which is defined by OECD as the sum of explicit carbon prices and fossil fuel taxes per carbon emission, the nationwide average effective carbon rate of Japan is lower than the average effective carbon rates of OECD countries and its key partner countries. The current carbon pricing schemes in Japan are too modest to realize decarbonization transition and there is a room to upgrade them to exploit full potential of carbon pricing. This chapter discusses adequate levels of carbon prices in compatible with decarbonization transition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 1950017
Author(s):  
MELANIE HECHT ◽  
WOLFGANG PETERS

In the post-Paris Agreement era, the number of carbon pricing initiatives in order to combat climate change grows continuously. However, carbon prices vary substantially among countries which yields negative drawbacks in terms of carbon leakage and loss of competitiveness for firms producing in countries with more stringent regulations. Border adjustments (BAs) could help tackle these negative drawbacks through harmonizing carbon prices across countries. We model a two-stage game where Country A can choose whether to implement BAs in the first stage. In the second stage, producers from both countries compete over prices in Bertrand competition or over quantities in Cournot competition. Most analyses on BAs so far focus on carbon pricing in the form of carbon taxes. However, we observe that many governments achieve their mitigation targets by implementing a cap and trade system with some kind of free allocation of emission allowances. From the current global carbon pricing situation, we identify two conditions for the compliance with the WTO’s national treatment principle that have not been dealt with in detail in previous models: (i) the application of BAs in the form of a cap and trade system and (ii) accounting for free allocation of emission allowances. Our results show that irrespective of the competition type, BAs supplementing a cap and trade system with free allocation improve welfare if the competitive pressure is high.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee

Carbon credits, carbon taxes, and emissions trading systems are familiar terms in discussions about limiting global warming, the Paris Agreement, and net-zero emissions goals. A more recent addition to the glossary of climate policy is “carbon tariff.” While the concept is not new, it recently surfaced in nascent policymaking in the EU. In 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)” as part of a proposed green deal. In March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible CBAM. A carbon tariff, or the EU’s CBAM, is a tax applied to carbon-intensive imports. Countries that have pledged to be more ambitious in reducing emissions—and in some cases have implemented binding targets—may impose carbon costs on their own businesses. Being eyed now are cross-border or overseas businesses that make products in countries in which no costs are imposed for emissions, resulting in cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Those products are exported to the countries aiming for reduced emissions. The concern lies in the risk of locally made goods becoming unfairly disadvantaged against competitors that are not taking similar steps to deal with climate change. A carbon tariff is being considered to level the playing field: local businesses in countries applying a tariff can better compete as climate policies evolve and are adopted around the world. Complying with WTO rules to ensure fair treatment, the CBAM will be imposed only on high-emitting industries that compete directly with local industries paying a carbon price. In the short term, these are likely to be steel, chemicals, fertilizers, and cement. The Parliament’s statement introduced another term to the glossary of climate policy: carbon leakage. “To raise global climate ambition and prevent ‘carbon leakage,’ the EU must place a carbon price on imports from less climate-ambitious countries.” It refers to the situation that may occur if businesses were to transfer production to other countries with laxer emission constraints to avoid costs related to climate policies. This could lead to an increase in total emissions in the higher-emitting countries. “The resolution underlines that the EU’s increased ambition on climate change must not lead to carbon leakage as global climate efforts will not benefit if EU production is just moved to non-EU countries that have less ambitious emissions rules,” the Parliament said. It also emphasized the tariff “must not be misused to further protectionism.” A member of the environment committee, Yannick Jadot, said, “It is a major political and democratic test for the EU, which must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This will give us the best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market.” The Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal.


HUTAN TROPIKA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-79
Author(s):  
Admin JHT

ABSTRACTThis research aims to estimate the biomass, carbon storage, carbon dioxide uptake andoxygen produced by sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria (L.) Nielsen) stand aged 9, 11and 13 years in IUPHHK-HTI PT Parwata Rimba, Central Kalimantan. Estimated ofbiomass, carbon stock, CO2 uptake and Oxygen produced using allometric equations.The results showed that the storage of sengon standing biomass aged 9,11 and 13 yearsranged from 110.71 to 200.94 tons/ha, carbon stock ranged from 52.03 to 94.44 tons C/ha, CO2 uptake ranged from 190.79 to 259.13 tons CO2/ha and Oxygen produced around138.75 to 251.84 tons O2/ha. The total of biomass, carbon stock, CO2 uptake and Oxygenproduced by sengon stands at forest plantations are large enough to have an importantrole in global climate change mitigation in the forestry sector.Keywords: biomassa, climate change, forest plantation, karbon, sengon


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 699-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoko Hasegawa ◽  
Shinichiro Fujimori ◽  
Petr Havlík ◽  
Hugo Valin ◽  
Benjamin Leon Bodirsky ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Basanta K. Pradhan ◽  
Joydeep Ghosh

This paper compares the effects of a global carbon tax and a global emissions trading regime on India using a dynamic CGE framework. The sensitivity of the results to the value of a crucial elasticity parameter is also analysed. The results suggest that the choice of the mitigation policy is relatively unimportant from an efficiency perspective. However, the choice of the mitigation policy and the value of the substitution elasticity between value added and energy were found to be important determinants of welfare effects. Global climate change mitigation policies have the potential for promoting low carbon and inclusive growth in India.


2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena S. Fletcher ◽  
David Kittredge ◽  
Thomas Stevens

Abstract Sequestered carbon is a new forest product that could help private forest owners earn financial returns while keeping their forests intact. Private forest owners are responsible for 78% of forests in Massachusetts, and the carbon these trees sequester could be traded in emerging cap-and-trade carbon markets in the United States. In forming policy about climate change and forestry, it is important to understand the factors that influence the likelihood of landowners choosing to sell sequestered carbon and participate in the carbon marketplace. In this pilot study, we explored the likelihood of Massachusetts forest owners selling carbon sequestered on their forestland. We found that landowners significantly favor higher payments, no withdrawal penalty, and, unexpectedly, longer time commitments. We also found that at current carbon prices, very few participants (less than 7%) would be willing to sell. Additional studies need to be conducted, with a larger sample of respondents, which may elucidate how socioeconomic variables and ownership attitudes influence forest owners' willingness to enroll in carbon markets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document