Imposing any tax among carbon tax, sulfur tax and nitrogen tax on fossil fuels will also reduce the other two air pollutants. Neglecting the synergistic effect of each energy environmental tax and levying carbon tax, sulfur tax and nitrogen tax at the same time will overestimate the abatement cost of air emissions. This study adopts a partial equilibrium model which uses linear demand and supply curves to illustrate the emission reductions in carbon tax, sulfur tax and nitrogen tax. The synergistic reduction effects of CO2, SO2 and NOx are firstly evaluated under the implicit tax scenario of resource tax and consumption tax on fossil fuels. Then it is compared with the synergistic reduction effects of CO2, SO2 and NOx under different explicit tax scenarios of increasing tax rate on carbon tax, sulfur tax and nitrogen tax. If the synergistic reduction effect of explicit environmental taxes is better, this research aims to find one kind of environmental tax among carbon tax, sulfur tax and nitrogen tax with the best synergistic reduction effect and to provide a decision support for the policy makers of energy environmental taxes. The results indicate that explicit environmental taxes have better synergistic reduction effects compared with the current implicit environmental taxes. And explicit sulfur tax can lead to the largest synergistic reduction effects of CO2, SO2 and NOx. Therefore, the policy makers of energy environmental taxes could consider adopting the explicit sulfur tax to reduce various environmental air emissions at the largest amount. 相似文献
Natural Hazards - Oil is an essential and important energy source and is related to energy security and national strategy. Based on a recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium model, this... 相似文献
China is preparing to develop and implement an emissions trading system in its 13th five-year plan. Allowance allocation is one of the key issues to settle during the establishment of this system. This study applies the China Energy and Environmental Policy Analysis model to assess how the allowances should be allocated. Simulation results show that, while impacts on China’s economic development vary according to how allowances are allocated, the negative impacts cannot be mitigated completely, which are between −0.5 and −0.1 % when 5 % of carbon emissions are reduced. In terms of the impacts on the macroeconomy, sectoral output, and capital revenue, results suggest that auctioning the allowances and recycling the revenue to reduce the indirect tax will perform best in alleviating the negative impacts. Meanwhile, impacts of carbon mitigation on international competitiveness can be reduced most in the approach where only key energy- and trade-intensive sectors are able to receive free allowances. However, if citizens’ welfare and quality of life is prioritized, auctioning the allowance and transferring the revenue to households in proportion to their occupation will be the most effective approach; in this case, the negative impacts on rural households’ disposable incomes and welfare will be reduced, and the income gap between rural and urban households will be narrowed.
Extreme climatic events are likely to adversely affect many countries throughout the world, but the degrees among countries may be different. China and Japan are the countries with high incidences of extreme weather/disaster, both facing with the urgent task of addressing climate change. This study seeks to quantitatively compare the impacts of extreme climatic events on socioeconomic systems (defined as vulnerability) of the two countries by simulating the consequences of hypothetical same degree of electricity disruption along with extreme events. To do that, two computable general equilibrium models are constructed, by using which three-stage scenarios are simulated for China and Japan, respectively. The results reveal that China and Japan have unequal socioeconomic vulnerabilities to extreme events. (1) Negative impact of the same degree of power outages is bigger on China’s socioeconomic system than on that of Japan, and this difference is more obvious in the very short-run scenario. (2) The decline of China’s GDP, total output, and employment levels is 2–3 times higher than that of Japan, while the difference of the resident welfare levels is sharper, which of China drops 3–5 times of Japan. (3) Structural factors are the main reason for vulnerability differences between China and Japan, including the differences of expenditure structure, factor input structure for production of life requirement sectors, material and energy dependence for the production of industrial sectors, and usage structure of services outputs. Based on these findings, some policy implications and recommendations for fairness issues on climate change adaptation are proposed. 相似文献
A series of global actions have been made to address climate change. As a recent developed climate policy, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) have renewed attention to the importance of exploring temperature rise levels lower than 2 °C, in particular a long-term limit of 1.5 °C, compared to the preindustrial level. Nonetheless, achieving the 2 °C target under the current INDCs depends on dynamic socioeconomic development pathways. Therefore, this study conducts an integrated assessment of INDCs by taking into account different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). To that end, the CEEP-BIT research community develops the China’s Climate Change Integrated Assessment Model (C3IAM) to assess the climate change under SSPs in the context of with and without INDCs. Three SSPs, including “a green growth strategy” (SSP1), “a more middle-of-the-road development pattern” (SSP2) and “further fragmentation between regions” (SSP3) form the focus of this study. Results show that after considering INDCs, mitigation costs become very low and they have no evident positive changes in three SSPs. In 2100, a temperature rise would occur in SSP1-3, which is 3.20, 3.48 and 3.59 °C, respectively. There are long-term difficulties to keep warming well below 2 °C and pursue efforts toward 1.5 °C target even under INDCs. A drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed in order to mitigate potentially catastrophic climate change impacts. This work contributes on realizing the hard link between the earth and socioeconomic systems, as well as extending the economic models by coupling the global CGE model with the economic optimum growth model. In C3IAM, China’s energy consumption and emissions pattern are investigated and refined. This study can provide policy makers and the public a better understanding about pathways through which different scenarios could unfold toward 2100, highlights the real mitigation and adaption challenges faced by climate change and can lead to formulating effective policies. 相似文献
The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between household expenditure and CO2 emissions among different income groups of urban and rural households in China. Having employed the 2007 Social Accounting Matrix of China, this study examines the direct and indirect CO2 emissions caused by household demand. The results show that within both urban and rural households, the higher the income level is, the higher the per capita emissions are; the CO2 emissions per unit expenditure due to savings and taxes are generally much larger than those from consumption of goods and services; and these emissions per unit consumption expenditures mainly come from indirect emissions. To deeply explore the relationships between consumption patterns and CO2 emissions, two scenarios are established to eliminate the differences in income level and consumption propensity among different groups step by step. Main results indicate that (1) the income gap is the primary cause of the significant differences in emission levels among each group; (2) the difference in consumption propensity is also a notable reason; and (3) the rural higher income groups spend a larger share of their income on those carbon-intensive goods (e.g., electricity, transportation, energy products), thus making their consumption patterns more carbon-intensive, while for the urban, the consumption patterns of lower income groups are more carbon-intensive. Finally, policy recommendations on the reduction of household emissions are also made.
