IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v8y2006i1d10.1007_bf03353994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental and economic analyses of the carbon tax based on the imputed price using applied general equilibrium model: taxation on the upper industrial sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Ken’ichi Matsumoto

    (Kwansei Gakuin University)

  • Toyoo Fukuda

    (Kwansei Gakuin University)

Abstract

Considering the latest arguments on global warming, CO2 emissions reduction by not only developed countries but also by developing countries is becoming a pivotal issue. Although the worldwide uniform-rate carbon tax (UCT) is thought to be a cost-effective method to reduce CO2 emissions, it places heavy economic burdens on developing countries. Because such a policy is likely to be opposed by developing countries and is against “common but differentiated responsibilities” of the UNFCCC, it is unlikely to be successfully implemented. This article discusses the effects of the worldwide differentiated-rate carbon tax from the policy viewpoint regarding environmental (CO2) and economic (gross domestic product) aspects. The tax, based on the imputed price of carbon (ICT), was compared with UCT by simulation analysis using the applied general equilibrium model. The world economy was classified into 15 industries and 14 regions in the model. Each tax was imposed on the upper industrial sectors. As ICT reduced CO2 emissions slightly less than UCT, it was found to generate positive GDP effects on developing countries, unlike UCT. With regard to the importance of worldwide introduction of CO2 abating policies and avoidance of excessive economic burdens on developing countries, ICT has higher economic equity and policy effectiveness than UCT.

Suggested Citation

  • Ken’ichi Matsumoto & Toyoo Fukuda, 2006. "Environmental and economic analyses of the carbon tax based on the imputed price using applied general equilibrium model: taxation on the upper industrial sectors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 89-102, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:8:y:2006:i:1:d:10.1007_bf03353994
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03353994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03353994
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03353994?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrett, Scott, 1998. "Political Economy of the Kyoto Protocol," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 20-39, Winter.
    2. Michael Hoel, 2001. "International trade and the environment: how to handle carbon leakage," Chapters, in: Henk Folmer & H. Landis Gabel & Shelby Gerking & Adam Rose (ed.), Frontiers of Environmental Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
    4. Rolf Golombek & Jan Braten, 1994. "Incomplete International Climate Agreements: Optimal Carbon Taxes, Market Failures and Welfare Effects," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 141-166.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ken’ichi Matsumoto & Toyoo Fukuda, 2006. "Environmental and economic analyses of the carbon tax based on the imputed price using applied general equilibrium model: taxation on the upper industrial sectors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 89-102, December.
    2. Kenichi Matsumoto & Toyoo Fukuda, 2006. "Analysis of the Effects of the Carbon Taxes Based on Imputed Prices of Carbon," EcoMod2006 272100061, EcoMod.
    3. Evans, Lewis & Counsell, Kevin, 2005. "Essays in Water Allocation: The Way Forward," Working Paper Series 3848, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    4. Hahn, Robert W. & Stavins, Robert N., 1999. "What Has Kyoto Wrought? The Real Architecture of International Tradable Permit Markets," Discussion Papers 10747, Resources for the Future.
    5. Scott Barrett & Robert Stavins, 2003. "Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 349-376, December.
    6. Evans, Lewis & Counsell, Kevin, 2005. "Essays in Water Allocation: The Way Forward," Working Paper Series 18943, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    7. repec:vuw:vuwscr:18943 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Michael Hoel, 2005. "The Triple Inefficiency of Uncoordinated Environmental Policies," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(1), pages 157-173, March.
    9. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    10. Böhringer, Christoph & Garcia-Muros, Xaquin & Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel & Rey, Luis, 2017. "US climate policy: A critical assessment of intensity standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 125-135.
    11. Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Tradable Permits in Developing Countries: Evidence from Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-51, Resources for the Future.
    12. Park, Hojeong & Hong, Won Kyung, 2014. "Korea׳s emission trading scheme and policy design issues to achieve market-efficiency and abatement targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-83.
    13. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(3), pages 179-210, July.
    14. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    15. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Julien Guyot & Akhil Rao & Sebastien Rouillon, 2022. "The long-run economics of sustainable orbit use," Working Papers hal-03891292, HAL.
    17. Coria, Jessica & Löfgren, Åsa & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "To Trade or Not to Trade: Firm-Level Analysis of Emissions Trading in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-25-efd, Resources for the Future.
    18. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    19. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2019. "Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    20. Karp, Larry S. & Liu, Xuemei, 1998. "Valuing Tradeable Co2 Permits For Oecd Countries," CUDARE Working Papers 25054, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    21. Bin Ye & Jingjing Jiang & Lixin Miao & Ji Li & Yang Peng, 2015. "Innovative Carbon Allowance Allocation Policy for the Shenzhen Emission Trading Scheme in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:8:y:2006:i:1:d:10.1007_bf03353994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.