{"title":"Equality and efficiency tradeoffs in revenue recycling of emission trading scheme: a case study on the recent chinese national ETS market","authors":"Shuyang Chen","doi":"10.1007/s10668-024-05380-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Owing to real constraints, a first-best climate policy is rarely socioeconomically optimal; therefore, policymakers may prefer a second-best or mixed policy, where revenue recycling (RR) is usually implemented as a complementary policy to the first-best policy. Unfortunately, how different RR policies affect equality and efficiency during first-best policy implementation remains to be researched. This paper attempts to narrow the research gap by designing and evaluating the RR policies for the emission trading scheme (ETS) simulating the Chinese National Emission Trading Scheme (CNETS). To achieve this research target, we have employed a dynamic recursive computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to analyze how the designed RR policies complement the ETS effects on emission abatement and economic growth. The results of the CGE model have confirmed the existence of a tradeoff between equality and efficiency. RR for income tax reduction is beneficial to emission abatement, but it has the worst performances on equality, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and household welfare. RR for subsidizing renewable energy causes the lowest GDP loss, but it adversely impacts emission abatement owing to the induced economic boom. Lump-sum income transfer to low-income households is the best RR option because it is the most equitable way to use ETS revenues and induces the highest household welfare with satisfactory performances on emission abatement and GDP. Hence, ETS revenues are recommended to be transferred to low-income households.</p>","PeriodicalId":540,"journal":{"name":"Environment, Development and Sustainability","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment, Development and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05380-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Owing to real constraints, a first-best climate policy is rarely socioeconomically optimal; therefore, policymakers may prefer a second-best or mixed policy, where revenue recycling (RR) is usually implemented as a complementary policy to the first-best policy. Unfortunately, how different RR policies affect equality and efficiency during first-best policy implementation remains to be researched. This paper attempts to narrow the research gap by designing and evaluating the RR policies for the emission trading scheme (ETS) simulating the Chinese National Emission Trading Scheme (CNETS). To achieve this research target, we have employed a dynamic recursive computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to analyze how the designed RR policies complement the ETS effects on emission abatement and economic growth. The results of the CGE model have confirmed the existence of a tradeoff between equality and efficiency. RR for income tax reduction is beneficial to emission abatement, but it has the worst performances on equality, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and household welfare. RR for subsidizing renewable energy causes the lowest GDP loss, but it adversely impacts emission abatement owing to the induced economic boom. Lump-sum income transfer to low-income households is the best RR option because it is the most equitable way to use ETS revenues and induces the highest household welfare with satisfactory performances on emission abatement and GDP. Hence, ETS revenues are recommended to be transferred to low-income households.
期刊介绍:
Environment, Development and Sustainability is an international and multidisciplinary journal covering all aspects of the environmental impacts of socio-economic development. It is also concerned with the complex interactions which occur between development and environment, and its purpose is to seek ways and means for achieving sustainability in all human activities aimed at such development. The subject matter of the journal includes the following and related issues:
-mutual interactions among society, development and environment, and their implications for sustainable development
-technical, economic, ethical and philosophical aspects of sustainable development
-global sustainability - the obstacles and ways in which they could be overcome
-local and regional sustainability initiatives, their practical implementation, and relevance for use in a wider context
-development and application of indicators of sustainability
-development, verification, implementation and monitoring of policies for sustainable development
-sustainable use of land, water, energy and biological resources in development
-impacts of agriculture and forestry activities on soil and aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity
-effects of energy use and global climate change on development and sustainability
-impacts of population growth and human activities on food and other essential resources for development
-role of national and international agencies, and of international aid and trade arrangements in sustainable development
-social and cultural contexts of sustainable development
-role of education and public awareness in sustainable development
-role of political and economic instruments in sustainable development
-shortcomings of sustainable development and its alternatives.