实现国家自主贡献目标背景下我国碳交易机制研究

以实现国家自主贡献目标为背景,运用电力行业细分的递推动态可计算一般均衡（CGE）模型,模拟我国统一碳市场下不同碳交易机制的实施效果及其经济影响。研究表明,全国统一碳市场有助于我国实现国家自主贡献目标,并且可以缓解碳减排对经济增长造成的负面影响;相比基于碳排放量免费分配初始碳配额的“祖父法则”,基于碳强度基准免费分配初始碳配额的“标杆法则”可以降低碳交易价格、增加碳配额交易量并扩大碳市场规模;采取拍卖方式有偿分配初始碳配额时碳市场中各行业面临更大的减排成本,但有利于增加政府收入;对碳市场未覆盖的行业和居民户征收碳税能有效控制其碳排放、增加政府财政收入、降低碳交易价格并促进我国国家自主贡献目标的实现;全国统一碳市场在抑制火电行业发展的同时将不同程度地促进清洁能源发电部门的发展。     

利用碳交易推动农业减排的理论与路径分析：国际经验及其对中国的启示

如何有效利用碳交易推动农业深度减排亟待讨论。文中回顾了利用碳交易促进农业减排的理论,梳理了相关国际实践、经验和障碍,并识别了利用碳交易推动中国农业减排的路径。理论上,在交易成本低于节约的减排成本的情况下,利用碳交易促进农业深度减排具备经济可行性,但在实践中面临排放不确定性大、技术标准体系匮乏、减排效果不稳定以及监测、报告和核查成本过高等障碍。农业纳入自愿碳市场在创新组织方式、构建风险分担机制和开发核算标准等方面取得了较大进展,但目前全球尚未将农业纳入强制碳市场。为积累经验并降低交易成本,农业可先参与自愿碳市场后逐步向强制碳市场过渡。中国核证自愿减排量（CCER）的农业项目是农业和自愿碳市场结合的重要实践,可在政策、方法学、运行机制等条件成熟的情况下逐渐扩大农业自愿减排项目的数量和规模。由于农业对粮食安全和国民经济发展的重要作用,是否将农业纳入强制碳市场必须非常谨慎。     

基于CGE模型的上海市碳排放交易的环境经济影响分析

通过应用上海市能源－环境-经济CGE模型,针对碳排放交易机制所涉及的重要要素,包括覆盖行业和分配方式等设计不同的情景,模拟了在不同的就业条件下碳排放交易机制对经济的影响和对传统污染物的协同减排效应。结果表明,如果碳交易纳管行业释放出来的劳动力能及时被其他行业吸纳和消化,则碳交易对GDP的整体影响为正,碳交易的实施产生了双重红利。若劳动力不能及时转移,则碳交易对GDP的整体影响为负,2020年不同情景下GDP损失为1.5%～2.4%;相比覆盖部分行业,在覆盖全部行业的情景下,碳价格最低,从2013年的30元/t增加到2020年的202元/t,对高耗能行业的竞争力影响相对较小,但是由于所有行业都纳入到纳管范围,使得对GDP的负面影响最大;此外,实施碳交易能明显改善环境效益,有助于推动SO₂和NO_X减排目标的实现。     

碳交易政策的经济影响:以广东省为例

通过构建广东省两区域动态模型,对广东省碳交易及其他政策措施进行定量评估,分析实施可调控总量的碳交易政策机制对广东省及参与交易部门的经济影响。研究结果表明,按照减排情景到2015年广东完成19.5%的碳强度下降目标,相比基准情景,GDP将减少0.7%;按照强减排情景到2015年将完成20.5%的碳强度下降目标,相比基准情景GDP将减少0.9%;如果在强减排情景的基础上实施碳交易政策,GDP相对基准情景减少0.8%,到2015年实施碳交易政策可减少GDP损失约90亿元,说明广东建立碳排放权交易机制能够发挥支持经济发展和节能减碳双赢的作用。     

全国碳排放权交易市场下电解铝行业基准线法研究

2011年以来,我国碳排放权交易市场建设不断加快,碳排放权交易机制不断健全完善,其中基准线法被确定为全国碳交易初始配额分配的主要方法。电解铝行业是我国能源消耗和碳排放的重点部门,尽早将该行业纳入碳市场对于行业减排、纵深推进全国碳市场交易以及应对国际碳边境调节机制政策均有重要意义。基于2018年电解铝行业直报的碳排放相关数据,确定了我国电解铝行业开展全国碳交易的基准线方案。结果显示,电解铝行业宜选取8.12~8.15 t CO₂/t铝作为基准线取值,不需设置区域差异调整系数。同时为保证电解铝行业碳交易的顺利开展,还需尽快确定行业配额方案,进一步完善企业排放量的监测、报告和核查以提高核查填报数据质量,以及进一步研究电解铝行业碳排放核算的范围。     

基于CGE模型的碳税政策模拟——以广东省为例

科学设置碳税政策是控制二氧化碳排放量和推动能源结构优化的重要基础,文中以广东省为例,利用2012年的广东省投入产出表、广东统计年鉴、广东财政年鉴、中国统计年鉴等数据构建社会核算矩阵,通过构建静态的可计算一般均衡模型（CGE),进行区域的碳税政策模拟,分析不同程度的碳税税率对化石能源消费量及各宏观经济变量的影响。结果表明：征收碳税对减排效果有明显的正向作用,当碳税水平为60元/t时,广东省减排效果为3.90%;在碳税定价上,60元/t较为合适;减排贡献率最高的化石能源为煤炭,其次为石油,最低为天然气;碳税冲击下能源消费量下降,最明显的为煤炭,其次是火电;碳税冲击也能显著减少各部门对煤炭的消费量;碳税政策对广东省GDP和社会福利有负向作用,但对总体碳排放强度有正向作用。未来广东省应严格控制煤炭消费量,同时对火电部门进行低碳改造。     

碳边境调节机制最新进展及潜在影响

2023年5月17日,欧盟碳边境调节机制法规正式生效,年底就要进入试运行阶段。法规要求出口特定产品到欧盟的企业为产品生产过程中所产生的温室气体排放支付费用。根据各国学者的建模分析,这将增加所有销往欧盟市场的相关产品的温室气体排放成本,对欧盟以外国家的生产、贸易、就业和收入产生不利影响,而欧盟国家的企业则获得相对的竞争优势,这引发了诸多争议。对此,中国应在多边主义框架下积极与欧盟开展磋商,争取全球各国在公平的前提下提升减排雄心,同时加紧全国碳市场建设,促进国内的碳价提高到足以反映国内减排成本的水平,促进相关行业的碳排放核算能力建设,以求降低增加的管理成本,并推动低碳技术的发展,以降低欧盟碳边境调节机制带来的负面影响。     

湖北碳交易试点价格稳定机制、评估及启示

碳排放交易体系存在诸多影响配额供需两端的因素,为避免配额供需严重失衡和碳价格剧烈波动,湖北碳交易试点建立了一套系统的碳价格稳定机制。这套机制包括配额分类管理及注销机制、企业配额事后调节机制、配额投放和回购机制、碳价格涨跌幅限制机制,对湖北碳交易试点的平稳运行发挥了积极作用。本文对上述机制进行了分析评估,并据此提出了全国碳交易体系建设中建立碳价格稳定机制的政策建议。     

实施低碳水泥标准的影响及协同减排效果分析

采用MAP-CGE模型,模拟了我国水泥行业实施低碳水泥标准对不同生产工艺产出、能耗及污染排放的影响,测算了对其边际减排成本和均衡价格的影响,分析了对不同污染物的协同减排效果。模拟结果表明：实施低碳水泥标准有利于水泥生产工艺的升级换代,并有助于水泥行业节能减排;在现有技术水平下,水泥行业在减排1 t CO2的同时将带来约1.17 kg的SO2减排量和4.44 kg的NOx减排量;实施低碳水泥标准对于水泥行业控制NOx排放很有利;但水泥行业也需承担减排成本并导致其均衡价格的小幅上升。     

碳排放权交易的减污降碳协同效应及影响机制

减污降碳协同共治能够缓解我国环境质量改善和温室气体减排的双重压力。碳排放权交易是减碳的关键市场手段,厘清其对大气污染治理的协同作用至关重要。文中基于2006—2019年我国省级面板数据,使用双重差分法(DID)分析了碳排放权交易试点政策的协同作用,并通过中介效应模型检验了其影响机制。研究发现：碳交易试点具有显著的减污降碳协同效应,其中CO₂与SO₂的协同控制效果最显著,但政策效应的持续性有待增强;政策能通过降低能源消费量、改善能源结构这两条路径降低CO₂与大气污染物排放,但调整产业结构尚不存在该传导作用。为增强碳排放权交易的减污降碳协同效应,文中从加强碳交易监管力度、坚持能源消费提质降耗、扩大全国碳市场行业覆盖范围3个方面提出了政策建议。     

Combining price and quantity instruments: insights from South Africa

A carbon tax will form the central carbon pricing instrument in South Africa. The country, however, is also in the process of setting specific short-term emissions limits at a subnational level. Additional mitigation policy instruments will thus be required to meet these targets. Although it is possible to combine sector-level quantity targets with a broad-based carbon tax, this article finds that this greatly complicates mitigation policy design, increasing both the information requirements and the likelihood of unintended consequences. The trade-offs between economic efficiency (optimized by the use of a broad-based price set by a carbon tax) and environmental effectiveness (optimized by using instruments that ensure emissions reduction targets are met) are ever present. A clear understanding of subnational quantity targets and an appreciation of the characteristics of the instruments to achieve such targets (quantity-based instruments, QBIs), the framework through which the instruments are combined, and their possible interactions, are required for effective policy making. Three possible frameworks for combining instruments are identified in the article, and some specific implications of interaction between particular QBIs and a carbon tax are suggested.

Policy relevance

This article explores the interaction of a carbon tax with mitigation policy instruments to meet subnational emissions targets in the South African context (where both a carbon tax and subnational emissions targets are currently being developed). As international negotiations progress towards countries accepting binding GHG emissions restrictions, quantity-based mitigation policy approaches become more important. In countries where a broad-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not feasible in the short to medium term, combining a broad-based carbon tax with subnational emission targets provides an alternative mechanism for achieving the economic efficiency and emissions certainty benefits derived from an ETS. This paper considers the mechanisms through which such a combination of instruments can be achieved. Three possible frameworks for combining instruments are identified, some specific implications of interaction between particular QBIs and a carbon tax are suggested, and guidelines and concept tools are presented to assist policy-makers in designing efficient and coherent mitigation policy.     

Carbon pricing in practice: a review of existing emissions trading systems

This article analyses the implementation of emissions trading systems (ETSs) in eight jurisdictions: the EU, Switzerland, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California in the US, Québec in Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and pilot schemes in China. The article clarifies what is working, what isn’t and why, when it comes to the practice of implementing an ETS. The eight ETSs are evaluated against five main criteria: environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, market management, revenue management and stakeholder engagement. Within each of these categories, ETS attributes ? including abatement cost, stringency of the cap, improved allocation practices over time and the trajectory of price stability ? are assessed for each system. Institutional learning, administrative prudence, appropriate carbon revenue management and stakeholder engagement are identified as key ingredients for successful ETS regimes. Recent implementation of ETSs in regions including California, Québec and South Korea indicates significant institutional learning from prior systems, especially the EU ETS, with these regions implementing more robust administrative and regulatory structures suitable for handling unique national and sub-national opportunities and constraints. The analysis also shows that there is potential for a ‘double dividend’ in emissions reductions even with a modest carbon price, provided the cap tightens over time and a portion of the auctioned revenues are reinvested in other emissions-reduction activities. Knowledge gaps exist in understanding the interaction of pricing instruments with other climate policy instruments and how governments manage these policies to achieve optimum emissions reductions with lower administrative costs.

Key policy insights

• Countries are learning from each other on ETS implementation.

• Administrative and regulatory structures of ETS jurisdictions appear to evolve and become more robust in every ETS analysed.

• A ‘double dividend’ for emissions reductions may also exist in cases where mitigation occurs as a result of the ETS policy and when auction revenues are reinvested in other emissions-reduction activities.

     

The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds

Can near-term public support of renewable energy technologies contain the increase of mitigation costs due to delays of implementing emission caps at the global level? To answer this question we design a set of first and second best scenarios to analyze the impact of early deployment of renewable energy technologies on welfare and emission timing to achieve atmospheric carbon stabilization by 2100. We use the global multiregional energy?Ceconomy?Cclimate hybrid model REMIND-R as a tool for this analysis. An important design feature of the policy scenarios is the timing of climate policy. Immediate climate policy contains the mitigation costs at less than 1% even if the CO₂ concentration target is 410?ppm by 2100. Delayed climate policy increases the costs significantly because the absence of a strong carbon price signal continues the carbon intensive growth path. The additional costs can be decreased by early technology policies supporting renewable energy technologies because emissions grow less, alternative energy technologies are increased in capacity and their costs are reduced through learning by doing. The effects of early technology policy are different in scenarios with immediate carbon pricing. In the case of delayed climate policy, the emission path can be brought closer to the first-best solution, whereas in the case of immediate climate policy additional technology policy would lead to deviations from the optimal emission path. Hence, technology policy in the delayed climate policy case reduces costs, but in the case of immediate climate policy they increase. However, the near-term emission reductions are smaller in the case of delayed climate policies. At the regional level the effects on mitigation costs are heterogeneously distributed. For the USA and Europe early technology policy has a positive welfare effect for immediate and delayed climate policies. In contrast, India looses in both cases. China loses in the case of immediate climate policy, but profits in the delayed case. Early support of renewable energy technologies devalues the stock of emission allowances, and this effect is considerable for delayed climate policies. In combination with the initial allocation rule of contraction and convergence a relatively well-endowed country like India loses and potential importers like the EU gain from early renewable deployment.     

Tax and trade: a hybrid climate policy instrument to control carbon prices and emissions

This article describes a ‘tax and trade' emission regulations system that controls both emission costs and emission quantities. Emitters are taxed at a fixed price on carbon emissions and the government uses the tax revenue to buy carbon offsets on existing emissions markets. Unlike a traditional carbon tax, regulated firms may also produce carbon credits which may be sold to the government. Thus, the government bears the compliance cost risk rather than an individual firm and has control over the number of offsets purchased and the effective emission reduction. This unusual form of hybrid has potential political advantages of creating an economic incentive on corporate choices (at the margin) substantially greater than the actual trading price, and with lower financial transfers than in most schemes.

Policy relevance

The article presents a hybrid carbon emissions system that adds to the growing discussion of hybrid policy instruments which could be implemented by policy makers, particularly in nations without current cap and trade policies.     

The differentiated impact of emissions trading system based on company size

Most countries implementing an emissions trading system (ETS), such as EU member states, California in the US, or South Korea, are generally targeting large sized companies, which consume energy above a specific threshold. However, previous studies using computable general equilibrium (CGE) models have analyzed climate policies without considering company size. This may have led to inaccurate results because the impacts of climate policy would differ depending on the coverage of regulated companies. Accordingly, this study examines the environmental and economic impacts of greenhouse gas emission reduction policies, assuming policy results vary by firm size, as covered by the Korean emission trading system. To this end, a CGE model with a separate social accounting matrix based on company size is used to compare three scenarios that reflect different types of carbon pricing methods. The results show that greenhouse gases will be reduced to a lower extent and utility will decrease more if mitigation policies are only imposed to large companies.

Key policy insights

• Carbon pricing policies should consider the different impacts on companies of different sizes and industry sectors.

• Without considering the different sizes of companies covered by an ETS, the expected carbon price and its economic impact will be underestimated.

• Small and medium-sized companies will face more negative impacts than large companies in some industry sectors under an ETS, even if the mitigation burden is only faced by large companies.

     

Carbon reduction in the real world: how the UK will surpass its Kyoto obligations

Abstract

Carbon dioxide emissions from UK energy use have fallen by more than 20% over the last 30 years, and carbon intensity—carbon emissions per unit of GDP—has halved. These reductions have been achieved by a combination of decarbonisation of the energy system and substantial improvements in energy efficiency. Use of natural gas in power generation has been a big factor in recent years, but energy efficiency improvements in households and particularly industry have been more important over a longer period. Government policies designed primarily to address climate change have not been important contributors, until recently.

Future reductions in emissions will require more proactive policies. However, they are possible without any economic difficulties, notably by adopting cost-effective energy efficiency measures, using new renewable energy sources and reducing dependence on private cars. These policies will improve economic efficiency. The new UK Climate Change Programme includes policies that combine regulation, investment, fiscal measures and other economic instruments. By working with the grain of other social, environmental and economic policies, they can achieve far more than a carbon tax alone, set at any politically acceptable level. Modelling the costs of emission reductions using a carbon tax as the only instrument would not only massively over-estimate costs, it would bear little resemblance to real world politics.

The paper demonstrates that a more diverse set of policy instruments is likely to be an effective and politically acceptable approach in a mature industrial economy. It is concluded that the UK's Kyoto target of a 12.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is not challenging. The UK Government's target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2010 is also achievable. By 2010 per capita emissions from the UK will be well below 2.5 tC per year. Claims that some countries, notably the USA, could not reduce per capita emissions below 6 tC per year seem inconsistent with this experience.     

Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?

The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions.     

Carbon reduction in the real world: how the UK will surpass its Kyoto obligations

Carbon dioxide emissions from UK energy use have fallen by more than 20% over the last 30 years, and carbon intensity — carbon emissions per unit of GDP — has halved. These reductions have been achieved by a combination of decarbonisation of the energy system and substantial improvements in energy efficiency. Use of natural gas in power generation has been a big factor in recent years, but energy efficiency improvements in households and particularly industry have been more important over a longer period. Government policies designed primarily to address climate change have not been important contributors, until recently.Future reductions in emissions will require more proactive policies. However, they are possible without any economic difficulties, notably by adopting cost-effective energy efficiency measures, using new renewable energy sources and reducing dependence on private cars. These policies will improve economic efficiency. The new UK Climate Change Programme includes policies that combine regulation, investment, fiscal measures and other economic instruments. By working with the grain of other social, environmental and economic policies, they can achieve far more than a carbon tax alone, set at any politically acceptable level. Modelling the costs of emission reductions using a carbon tax as the only instrument would not only massively over-estimate costs, it would bear little resemblance to real world politics.The paper demonstrates that a more diverse set of policy instruments is likely to be an effective and politically acceptable approach in a mature industrial economy. It is concluded that the UK’s Kyoto target of a 12.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is not challenging. The UK Government’s target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2010 is also achievable. By 2010 per capita emissions from the UK will be well below 2.5 tC per year. Claims that some countries, notably the USA, could not reduce per capita emissions below 6 tC per year seem inconsistent with this experience.