不确定条件下价格型和数量型减排政策工具的比较分析
|
摘要
本文在宏观经济不确定的情况下,使用多部门DSGE模型,比较分析限额交易与碳税这两个减缓碳排放政策工具的优劣以及公共环境治理条件下减排政策工具的选择。研究发现:(1)经济不确定条件下,碳税政策与限额交易政策的优劣与部门不确定性大小相关。税收政策有利于消费,限额交易政策的优势在于降低经济波动和环境质量的改善,两种政策的优劣取决于消费和环境质量对消费者福利的影响程度。(2)环境不确定条件下,碳税政策始终优于限额交易政策。碳税政策显著的改善环境质量,增加消费者福利。(3)碳税政策下,部门产出和排放与总产出的联动特征遵循传统的顺周期变化模式,部门冲击越大,其产出与排放与总产出的联动性越强;限额交易政策下,部门排放与总产出的相关性在不同的冲击下有显著的差异。(4)公共环境治理的有效性与其实施效率及减排政策工具的选择相关。限额交易政策下,公共减排政策的实施会进一步改善环境质量,而在碳税政策下,环境质量可能进一步恶化。
In the case of macroeconomic uncertainty,this paper utilizes multi-sector DSGE model to compare the advantages and disadvantages of cap-and-trade and carbon tax policy and to choose public policy tools of reducing emissions under the conditions of environmental governance.The study finds that:(1) Under economic uncertainty,the advantages and disadvantages of carbon tax policy and cap-and-trade policy are related to the uncertain size of sections.Tax policy is advantageous to the consumer.The advantage of cap-and-trade policy is to reduce the economic fluctuations and the improvement of environmental quality.The merits and demerits of this two kinds of policies depend on the influence degree of the consumption and of environmental quality on consumer welfare.(2) Under environmental uncertainty,carbon tax policy is always superior to cap-and-trade policy.Carbon tax policy significantly improves environmental quality and increases consumer welfare.(3) Under the carbon tax policy,the interacted characteristics of the output plus emission of the sector and the total output follow the traditional procyclical pattern.The more difficulties sections suffer,the stronger interaction sections' output and output involves with the total output;Under the cap-andtrade policy,the correlation between sector emissions and total output is significantly different in different shocks.(4)The effectiveness of public environmental governance is related to its implementation efficiency and selection of policy tools for emission reduction.Under the cap-and-trade policy,the implementation of public emission reduction policies will further improve the environmental quality;Under the carbon tax policy,environmental quality may deteriorate further.
In the case of macroeconomic uncertainty,this paper utilizes multi-sector DSGE model to compare the advantages and disadvantages of cap-and-trade and carbon tax policy and to choose public policy tools of reducing emissions under the conditions of environmental governance.The study finds that:(1) Under economic uncertainty,the advantages and disadvantages of carbon tax policy and cap-and-trade policy are related to the uncertain size of sections.Tax policy is advantageous to the consumer.The advantage of cap-and-trade policy is to reduce the economic fluctuations and the improvement of environmental quality.The merits and demerits of this two kinds of policies depend on the influence degree of the consumption and of environmental quality on consumer welfare.(2) Under environmental uncertainty,carbon tax policy is always superior to cap-and-trade policy.Carbon tax policy significantly improves environmental quality and increases consumer welfare.(3) Under the carbon tax policy,the interacted characteristics of the output plus emission of the sector and the total output follow the traditional procyclical pattern.The more difficulties sections suffer,the stronger interaction sections' output and output involves with the total output;Under the cap-andtrade policy,the correlation between sector emissions and total output is significantly different in different shocks.(4)The effectiveness of public environmental governance is related to its implementation efficiency and selection of policy tools for emission reduction.Under the cap-and-trade policy,the implementation of public emission reduction policies will further improve the environmental quality;Under the carbon tax policy,environmental quality may deteriorate further.
引文
[1]HSU A,ALISA Z.Environmental performance index[R].Yale University:Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy,2016.
[2]WEITZMAN M L.Optimal rewards for economic regulation[J].The American Economic Review,1978,68(4):691-698.
[3]FISCHER C,SPRINGBORN M.Emissions targets and the real business cycle:Intensity targets versus caps or taxes[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2011,62(3):352-366.
[4]ANGELOPOULOS K,ECONOMIDES G,PHILIPPOPOULOSA.What is the best environmental policy?Taxes,permits and rules under economic and environmental uncertainty[R].CESifo working paper Public Finance,2010.
[5]DISSOU Y,KARNIZOVA L.Emissions cap or emissions tax?A multi-sector business cycle analysis[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2016,79(9):169-188.
[6]顾阿伦,吕志强.经济结构变动对中国碳排放影响---基于IO-SDA方法的分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2016,26(3):37-45.
[7]郭朝先.产业结构变动对中国碳排放的影响[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(7):15-20.
[8]李健,周慧.中国碳排放强度与产业结构的关联分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(1):7-14.
[9]何晶晶.构建中国碳排放权交易法初探[J].中国软科学,2013(9):10-22.
[10]范进,赵定涛,郭韬.基于消费者视角的碳排放权交易机制研究[J].中国软科学,2012(6):24-32.
[11]王班班,齐绍洲.市场型和命令型政策工具的节能减排技术创新效应---基于中国工业行业专利数据的实证[J].中国工业经济,2016(6):91-108.
[12]吴力波,钱浩祺,汤维祺.基于动态边际减排成本模拟的碳排放权交易与碳税选择机制[J].经济研究,2014(9):48-61.
[13]石敏俊,袁永娜,周晟吕等.碳减排政策:碳税、碳交易还是两者兼之?[J].管理科学学报,2013(9):9-19.
[14]NGAI L R,PISSARIDES C A.Structural change in a multisector model of growth[J].The American Economic Review,2007,97(1):429-443.
[15]ENGSTROM G.Structural and climatic change[J].Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2016,37(6):62-74.
[16]BARTZ S,KELLY D L.Economic growth and the environment:Theory and facts[J].Resource and Energy Economics,2008,30(2):115-149.
[17]FLEURBAEY M.Beyond GDP:The quest for a measure of social welfare[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2009,47(4):1029-1075.
[18]ACEMOGLU D,GUERRIERI V.Capital Deepening and Non-Balanced economic growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,2008,116(3):467-498.
[19]翁宏标,王斌会.中国分行业资本存量的估计[J].统计与决策,2012(12):89-92.
[20]SONG Z,STORESLETTEN K,ZILIBOTTI F.Growing like China[J].The American Economic Review,2011,101(1):196-233.
[21]黄赜琳.中国经济周期特征与财政政策效应---一个基于三部门RBC模型的实证分析[J].经济研究,2005(6):27-39.
[2]WEITZMAN M L.Optimal rewards for economic regulation[J].The American Economic Review,1978,68(4):691-698.
[3]FISCHER C,SPRINGBORN M.Emissions targets and the real business cycle:Intensity targets versus caps or taxes[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2011,62(3):352-366.
[4]ANGELOPOULOS K,ECONOMIDES G,PHILIPPOPOULOSA.What is the best environmental policy?Taxes,permits and rules under economic and environmental uncertainty[R].CESifo working paper Public Finance,2010.
[5]DISSOU Y,KARNIZOVA L.Emissions cap or emissions tax?A multi-sector business cycle analysis[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2016,79(9):169-188.
[6]顾阿伦,吕志强.经济结构变动对中国碳排放影响---基于IO-SDA方法的分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2016,26(3):37-45.
[7]郭朝先.产业结构变动对中国碳排放的影响[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(7):15-20.
[8]李健,周慧.中国碳排放强度与产业结构的关联分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(1):7-14.
[9]何晶晶.构建中国碳排放权交易法初探[J].中国软科学,2013(9):10-22.
[10]范进,赵定涛,郭韬.基于消费者视角的碳排放权交易机制研究[J].中国软科学,2012(6):24-32.
[11]王班班,齐绍洲.市场型和命令型政策工具的节能减排技术创新效应---基于中国工业行业专利数据的实证[J].中国工业经济,2016(6):91-108.
[12]吴力波,钱浩祺,汤维祺.基于动态边际减排成本模拟的碳排放权交易与碳税选择机制[J].经济研究,2014(9):48-61.
[13]石敏俊,袁永娜,周晟吕等.碳减排政策:碳税、碳交易还是两者兼之?[J].管理科学学报,2013(9):9-19.
[14]NGAI L R,PISSARIDES C A.Structural change in a multisector model of growth[J].The American Economic Review,2007,97(1):429-443.
[15]ENGSTROM G.Structural and climatic change[J].Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2016,37(6):62-74.
[16]BARTZ S,KELLY D L.Economic growth and the environment:Theory and facts[J].Resource and Energy Economics,2008,30(2):115-149.
[17]FLEURBAEY M.Beyond GDP:The quest for a measure of social welfare[J].Journal of Economic Literature,2009,47(4):1029-1075.
[18]ACEMOGLU D,GUERRIERI V.Capital Deepening and Non-Balanced economic growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,2008,116(3):467-498.
[19]翁宏标,王斌会.中国分行业资本存量的估计[J].统计与决策,2012(12):89-92.
[20]SONG Z,STORESLETTEN K,ZILIBOTTI F.Growing like China[J].The American Economic Review,2011,101(1):196-233.
[21]黄赜琳.中国经济周期特征与财政政策效应---一个基于三部门RBC模型的实证分析[J].经济研究,2005(6):27-39.