Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 141–163 | Cite as

Unilateral Climate Policy with Production-Based and Consumption-Based Carbon Emission Taxes

  • Thomas Eichner
  • Rüdiger Pethig
Article

Abstract

This paper characterizes a sub-global climate coalition’s unilateral policy of reaching a given climate damage reduction goal at minimum costs. Following Eichner and Pethig (J Environ Econ Manag, 2013) we set up a two-country two-period model in which one of the countries represents a climate coalition that implements a binding ceiling on the world’s first-period emissions. The other country is the rest of the world and refrains from taking action. The coalition can make use of production-based carbon emission taxes in both periods, as in Eichner and Pethig (J Environ Econ Manag, 2013), but here we consider consumption-based carbon emission taxes as an additional instrument. The central question is whether and how the coalition employs the consumption-based taxes along with the production-based taxes in its unilateral cost-effective ceiling policy. All cost-effective policies identified analytically and numerically consist of a mix of both types of taxes implying that there is a tax mix which is less expensive for the coalition than stand-alone consumption-based or stand-alone production-based taxes. With full cooperation both taxes are perfect substitutes (in our model), but in case of unilateral action they are imperfect substitutes, because coalition’s total welfare loss from two different but moderate distortions is smaller than that from a single but severe distortion.

Keywords

Carbon emissions Ceiling Unilateral Cost-effective Regulation 

JEL classification

H21 H23 Q54 Q58 

References

  1. Albrecht J (2006) The use of consumption taxes to re-launch green tax reforms. Int Rev Law Econ 26:88–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biermann F, Brohm R (2005) Implementing the Kyoto protocol without the USA: the strategic role of energy tax adjustments at the border. Clim Policy 4:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of environment. J Public Econ 52:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakravorty U, Magne B, Moreaux M (2006) A Hotelling model with a ceiling on the stock of pollution. J Econ Dyn Control 30:2875–2904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting CO\(_2\) emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:5687–5693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eichner T, Pethig R (2011) Carbon leakage, the green paradox and perfect future markets. Int Econ Rev 52:767–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eichner T, Pethig R (2013) Flattening the carbon extraction path in unilateral cost-effective action. J Environ Econ Manag 66:185–201Google Scholar
  8. Elliott J, Foster I, Kortum S, Munson T, Perez Cervantes F, Weisbach D (2010) Trade and carbon taxes. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 100:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliott J, Foster I, Kortum S, Khun Jush G, Munson T, Weisbach D (2012) Unilateral carbon taxes, border tax adjustments and carbon leakage. Argonne National Laboratory, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Preprint ANL/MCS-P1711-0110Google Scholar
  10. Finus M (2003) Stability and design of international environmental agreements: the case of transboundary pollution. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2003/2004. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerlagh R (2011) Too much oil. CESifo Econ Stud 57:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grafton RQ, can Long N, Kompas T (2010) Biofuels subsidies and the green paradox. CESifo Working Paper No. 2960Google Scholar
  13. Hoel M (1994) Efficient climate policy in the presence of free riders. J Environ Econ Manag 27:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoel M (2011) Climate change and carbon tax expectations. CESifo Working Paper No. 2966Google Scholar
  15. Holland SP (2012) Emission taxes versus intensity standards: second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 63:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ismer R, Neuhoff K (2007) Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur J Law Econ 24:137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakob M, Marschinski R, Hübler M (2013) Between a rock and a hard place: a trade-theory analysis of leakage under production- and consumption-based policies. Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9638-y
  18. Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O (2010) Prices vs. quantities and the intertemporal dynamics of the climate rent. Conference Paper WCERE 2010Google Scholar
  19. Michielsen T (2011) Brown backstops versus the green paradox. CentER discussion paper No. 2011-076Google Scholar
  20. Monjon S, Quirion P (2010) How to design a border adjustment for the European Union Emissions Trading System? Energy Policy 38:5199–5207Google Scholar
  21. Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O (2011) Growth in emission transfer via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:8903–8908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ritter H, Schopf M (2013) Unilateral climate policy: harmful or disastrous? Environ Resour Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9697-0
  23. Sinclair P (1992) High does nothing and rising is worse: carbon taxes should be kept declining to cut harmful emissions. Manch Sch 60:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sinclair P (1994) On the optimum trend of fossil fuel taxation. Oxf Econ Pap 46:869–877Google Scholar
  25. Sinn H-W (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Finance 15:360–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van der Ploeg F, Withagen C (2012) Is there really a green paradox? J Environ Econ Manag 64:342–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whalley J, Wigle R (1991) The international incidence of carbon taxes. In: Dornbusch R, Poterba JM (eds) Global warming. Economic policy responses. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–270Google Scholar
  28. Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emissions and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang Z (2010) Climate change meets trade in promoting green growth: potential conflicts and synergies. FEEM Working Paper Series 408.2010Google Scholar
  30. Zhang Z (2012) Competitiveness and leakage concern and border carbon adjustments. FEEM Working Paper Series 80.2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of HagenHagenGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations