The efforts of Taiwan to achieve NDC target: an integrated assessment on the carbon emission trading system

  • Yi-Hua Wu
  • Hancheng DaiEmail author
  • Yang XieEmail author
  • Toshihiko Masui
Original Paper


In this paper, we adopt a computable general equilibrium model to investigate the impacts of achieving Taiwan’s target of nationally determined contributions (NDC). We consider two types of scenarios: one implemented with the emission trading system (ETS) and the other designed under cap without trade. Our findings suggest that Taiwan’s NDC target is achievable in two policies but with different economic costs. On the one hand, ETS reconciles the demand and supply for emission allowances. More participants in the ETS increase the chance that a buyer can match the seller; moreover, the carbon price is lower. On the other hand, in the cap-without-trade scenario, industrial sectors have to pay higher prices for emission allowances if there is no market for emission–allowance exchanges. Furthermore, we find that the initial distribution of free emission allowances affects not only sectoral emissions but also GDP loss. In 2030, the GDP loss ranges from 1.8 to 2.2% in the cap-without-trade scenario and around 1.8% in the ETS. Therefore, the ETS helps achieve Taiwan’s NDC target with a lower economic loss. Taiwan, an independent energy system isolated from other countries or regions, can achieve its NDC target with the launch of ETS.


Emission trading system AIM-CGE NDC Taiwan 



This study is funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (51861135102, 71690245, 71704005, 71690241), the Startup Research Fund of College of Environmental Science and Engineering at Peking University, and the Environmental Research and Technology Development Fund (S-12-2 and 2-1402) of the Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan. The authors are grateful for the comments from anonymous reviewers of this paper.

Supplementary material

11069_2019_3660_MOESM1_ESM.docx (137 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 136 kb)


  1. Böhringer C, Lange A (2005) Economic implications of alternative allocation schemes for emission allowances. Scand J Econ 107(3):563–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhringer C, Löschel A (2005) Climate policy beyond Kyoto: Quo vadis? Kyklos 58(4):467–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng B, Dai H, Wang P, Zhao D, Masui T (2015) Impacts of carbon trading scheme on air pollutant emissions in Guangdong Province of China. Energy Sustain Dev 27:174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng B, Dai H, Wang P, Xie Y, Chen L, Zhao D, Masui T (2016) Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong Province, China. Energy Policy 88:515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cong R-G, Wei Y-M (2010) Potential impact of (CET) Carbon emissions trading on China’s power sector: a perspective from different allowance allocation options. Energy 35:3921–3931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dai H (2012) Integrated assessment of China’s provincial low carbon economy development towards 2030: Jiangxi province as an example. Dissertation, Tokyo Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  7. Denny E, O’Malley M (2009) The impact of carbon prices on generation-cycling costs. Energy Policy 37(4):1204–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong H, Dai H, Dong L, Fujita T, Geng Y (2015) Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Appl Energy 144(15):165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis J, Tirpak D (2006) Linking GHG emission trading schemes and markets. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan Y, Wu J, Xia Y, Liu J (2016) How will a nationwide carbon market affect regional economies and efficiency of CO2 emission reduction in China? China Econ Rev 38:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujimori S, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2014) Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology. Appl Energy 128(3):296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujimori S, Kubota I, Dai H et al (2016) Will international emissions trading help achieve the objectives of the paris agreement? Environ Res Lett 11(10):104001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen J, Rasmussen TN (2000) Allocation of CO2 emissions permits: a general equilibrium analysis of policy instruments. J Environ Econ Manag 40:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ke W, Wang C, Chen J (2009) Analysis of the economic impact of different Chinese climate policy options based on a CGE model incorporating endogenous technological change. Energy Policy 37(8):2930–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reinaud J, Philibert C (2007) Emissions trading: trends and prospects. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Ren S, Dai H, Wang P, Zhao D, Masui T (2015) Economic impacts of carbon emission trading: case study on Guangdong Province. Adv Clim Change Res 11(1):61–67 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  17. Rutherford TF (1999) Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: an overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Comput Econ 14(1–2):1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Springer U (2003) The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies. Energy Econ 25(5):527–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Springer U, Varilek M (2004) Estimating the price of tradable permits for greenhouse gas emissions in 2008-12. Energy Policy 32:611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tang W, Wu L (2014) Efficiency or equity? Simulating the carbon emission permits trading schemes in China based on an inter-regional CGE model. Accessed 26 July 2018
  21. Tian X, Dai H, Geng Y (2016a) Effect of household consumption changes on regional low-carbon development: a case study of Shanghai. China Popul Resour Environ 26(5):55–63 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  22. Tian X, Geng Y, Dai H, Fujita T, Wu R, Liu Z, Masui T, Xie Y (2016b) The effects of household consumption pattern on regional development: a case study of Shanghai. Energy 103(15):49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang P, Dai H, Ren S, Zhao D, Masui T (2015) Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading: economic impacts assessment in Guangdong Province of China. Energy 79:212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang K, Wei Y-M, Huang Z (2016) Potential gains from carbon emissions trading in China: a DEA based estimation on abatement cost savings. Omega 63:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, Xie Y, Masui T, Tian X (2016) Achieving China’s INDC through carbon cap-and-trade: insights from Shanghai. Appl Energy 184(15):1114–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang ZX (1996) Macroeconomic effects of CO2 emission limits: a computable general equilibrium analysis for China. J Policy Model 20(2):213–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang Y-J, Wei Y-M (2010) An overview of current research on EU ETS: evidence from its operating mechanism and economic effect. Appl Energy 87(6):1804–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang Y, Wang A, Tan W (2015) The impact of China’s carbon allowance allocation rules on the product prices and emission reduction behaviors of ETS-covered enterprises. Energy Policy 86:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang X, Qi T, Ou X, Zhang X (2017) The role of multi-region integrated emissions trading scheme: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Appl Energy 185(2):1860–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhou P, Zhang L, Zhou DQ, Xia WJ (2013) Modeling economic performance of interprovincial CO2 emission reduction quota trading in China. Appl Energy 112:1518–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNational Tsing Hua UniversityXinzhuTaiwan
  2. 2.College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.Center for Social and Environmental Systems ResearchNational Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)TsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations