Cross-border risks of industrial decarbonization: Carbon tariffs exacerbate carbon inequity in international trade

IF 5.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Yanan Ren, Mei Wang, Qunwei Wang
{"title":"Cross-border risks of industrial decarbonization: Carbon tariffs exacerbate carbon inequity in international trade","authors":"Yanan Ren,&nbsp;Mei Wang,&nbsp;Qunwei Wang","doi":"10.1111/jiec.70094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Policies targeting cross-border industrial decarbonization, such as carbon tariffs, may risk exacerbating the structural inequity between countries/regions regarding climate responsibility and economic benefits. As a typical representative, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is introduced to combat carbon leakage and promote global industrial decarbonization. However, the implications of CBAM on trade-related carbon inequity remain underexplored. Using international trade data of the primary CBAM-targeted sectors (cement, fertilizers, iron and steel, and aluminum), we apply the Carbon Gini coefficient and the Trade Carbon Inequity (TCI) index to assess the effects of carbon tariffs with various revenue recycling mechanisms on trade-related carbon inequities at both global and national/regional levels. The results reveal that implementing CBAM, without revenue recycling, significantly intensifies carbon inequity, as indicated by increased Carbon Gini coefficients and higher percentage increases in developing economies’ TCI indices. Moreover, revenue recycling—whether based on national/regional historical climate damage or per-capita income—partially mitigates these effects, yet carbon inequities remain above the pre-CBAM baselines. In contrast, our proposed TCI-based allocation criterion reduces the Carbon Gini coefficients below pre-CBAM levels and offsets CBAM-related TCI increases in developing economies such as Turkey and India. These findings emphasize that CBAM design needs to integrate justice-oriented revenue recycling to harmonize decarbonization efforts with equity goals in pursuing a globally carbon-neutral economy while reconciling Sustainable Development Goals—specifically, “SDG13-Climate Action” and “SDG10-Reduced Inequalities.”</p>","PeriodicalId":16050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","volume":"29 6","pages":"2082-2097"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Industrial Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.70094","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Policies targeting cross-border industrial decarbonization, such as carbon tariffs, may risk exacerbating the structural inequity between countries/regions regarding climate responsibility and economic benefits. As a typical representative, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is introduced to combat carbon leakage and promote global industrial decarbonization. However, the implications of CBAM on trade-related carbon inequity remain underexplored. Using international trade data of the primary CBAM-targeted sectors (cement, fertilizers, iron and steel, and aluminum), we apply the Carbon Gini coefficient and the Trade Carbon Inequity (TCI) index to assess the effects of carbon tariffs with various revenue recycling mechanisms on trade-related carbon inequities at both global and national/regional levels. The results reveal that implementing CBAM, without revenue recycling, significantly intensifies carbon inequity, as indicated by increased Carbon Gini coefficients and higher percentage increases in developing economies’ TCI indices. Moreover, revenue recycling—whether based on national/regional historical climate damage or per-capita income—partially mitigates these effects, yet carbon inequities remain above the pre-CBAM baselines. In contrast, our proposed TCI-based allocation criterion reduces the Carbon Gini coefficients below pre-CBAM levels and offsets CBAM-related TCI increases in developing economies such as Turkey and India. These findings emphasize that CBAM design needs to integrate justice-oriented revenue recycling to harmonize decarbonization efforts with equity goals in pursuing a globally carbon-neutral economy while reconciling Sustainable Development Goals—specifically, “SDG13-Climate Action” and “SDG10-Reduced Inequalities.”

产业脱碳的跨境风险:碳关税加剧了国际贸易中的碳不平等
针对跨境工业脱碳的政策,如碳关税,可能会加剧国家/地区之间在气候责任和经济利益方面的结构性不平等。以欧盟碳边界调整机制(CBAM)为代表,打击碳泄漏,促进全球工业脱碳。然而,CBAM对与贸易相关的碳不平等的影响仍未得到充分探讨。我们利用主要目标行业(水泥、化肥、钢铁和铝)的国际贸易数据,运用碳基尼系数和贸易碳不平等(TCI)指数,在全球和国家/地区层面评估碳关税与各种收入回收机制对贸易相关碳不平等的影响。结果表明,在没有收入回收的情况下,实施CBAM显著加剧了碳不平等,这体现在碳基尼系数的增加和发展中经济体TCI指数的更高百分比增幅上。此外,收入循环——无论是基于国家/地区历史气候损害还是基于人均收入——部分缓解了这些影响,但碳不平等仍高于cbam之前的基线。相比之下,我们提出的基于TCI的分配标准将碳基尼系数降低到cbam之前的水平,并抵消了土耳其和印度等发展中经济体与cbam相关的TCI增长。这些研究结果强调,CBAM设计需要整合以正义为导向的收入回收,以协调脱碳努力与追求全球碳中和经济的公平目标,同时协调可持续发展目标,特别是“可持续发展目标13-气候行动”和“可持续发展目标10-减少不平等”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Journal of Industrial Ecology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Industrial Ecology addresses a series of related topics: material and energy flows studies (''industrial metabolism'') technological change dematerialization and decarbonization life cycle planning, design and assessment design for the environment extended producer responsibility (''product stewardship'') eco-industrial parks (''industrial symbiosis'') product-oriented environmental policy eco-efficiency Journal of Industrial Ecology is open to and encourages submissions that are interdisciplinary in approach. In addition to more formal academic papers, the journal seeks to provide a forum for continuing exchange of information and opinions through contributions from scholars, environmental managers, policymakers, advocates and others involved in environmental science, management and policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书