当标准比碳税有更好的分配效果时

ERN: Equity Pub Date : 2020-11-29 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3739546
Jiaxin Zhao, Linus Mattauch
{"title":"当标准比碳税有更好的分配效果时","authors":"Jiaxin Zhao, Linus Mattauch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3739546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carbon pricing is the efficient instrument to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, the geographical and sectoral coverage of substantial carbon pricing remains low, often due to concerns that it may increase economic inequality. Regulatory standards such as fuel economy standards are more popular. Could it be the case that they have an equity advantage over carbon pricing? We develop two formal models to identify economic situations in which standards have better distributional consequences. First, we prove that an efficiency standard can be more equitable than carbon pricing when consumers exhibit a preference for high-carbon technology attributes. Evidence from the US vehicle market confirms this finding. Second, we show theoretically, and by means of a numerical application to the Chinese transport sector, that intensity standards are preferable when richer households consume more goods with high carbon intensity. Our results hold when the revenue from carbon pricing is not very progressively redistributed. These insights may help advance decarbonisation when pricing remains unpopular.","PeriodicalId":282303,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Equity","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Standards Have Better Distributional Consequences Than Carbon Taxes\",\"authors\":\"Jiaxin Zhao, Linus Mattauch\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3739546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Carbon pricing is the efficient instrument to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, the geographical and sectoral coverage of substantial carbon pricing remains low, often due to concerns that it may increase economic inequality. Regulatory standards such as fuel economy standards are more popular. Could it be the case that they have an equity advantage over carbon pricing? We develop two formal models to identify economic situations in which standards have better distributional consequences. First, we prove that an efficiency standard can be more equitable than carbon pricing when consumers exhibit a preference for high-carbon technology attributes. Evidence from the US vehicle market confirms this finding. Second, we show theoretically, and by means of a numerical application to the Chinese transport sector, that intensity standards are preferable when richer households consume more goods with high carbon intensity. Our results hold when the revenue from carbon pricing is not very progressively redistributed. These insights may help advance decarbonisation when pricing remains unpopular.\",\"PeriodicalId\":282303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Equity\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Equity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739546\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Equity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739546","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

碳定价是减少排放的有效手段。然而,大量碳定价的地域和部门覆盖范围仍然很低,这往往是由于担心它可能会增加经济不平等。燃油经济性标准等监管标准更受欢迎。它们在碳定价方面是否有股权优势?我们开发了两个正式的模型,以确定标准具有更好的分配结果的经济情况。首先,我们证明了当消费者表现出对高碳技术属性的偏好时,效率标准比碳定价更公平。来自美国汽车市场的证据证实了这一发现。其次,我们从理论上并通过对中国交通运输部门的数值应用表明,当富裕家庭消费更多高碳强度商品时,强度标准更可取。我们的研究结果在碳定价收入不是非常渐进地再分配的情况下成立。这些见解可能有助于在定价仍然不受欢迎的情况下推进脱碳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Standards Have Better Distributional Consequences Than Carbon Taxes
Carbon pricing is the efficient instrument to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, the geographical and sectoral coverage of substantial carbon pricing remains low, often due to concerns that it may increase economic inequality. Regulatory standards such as fuel economy standards are more popular. Could it be the case that they have an equity advantage over carbon pricing? We develop two formal models to identify economic situations in which standards have better distributional consequences. First, we prove that an efficiency standard can be more equitable than carbon pricing when consumers exhibit a preference for high-carbon technology attributes. Evidence from the US vehicle market confirms this finding. Second, we show theoretically, and by means of a numerical application to the Chinese transport sector, that intensity standards are preferable when richer households consume more goods with high carbon intensity. Our results hold when the revenue from carbon pricing is not very progressively redistributed. These insights may help advance decarbonisation when pricing remains unpopular.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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