Distributional effects of carbon taxation

Wang, Qian; Hubacek, Klaus; Feng, Kuishuang; Wei, Yi‐Ming; Liang, Qiao‐Mei

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.083

Cited by 173 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 104 publications

(212 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Input-output Analysis Input-output analysis has been frequently used to study the distributional effects of energy subsidies and carbon pricing on different household groups (Choi et al, 2016;Feng et al, 2010;Kerkhof et al, 2008;Ogarenko and Hubacek, 2013;Wang et al, 2016;Wier et al, 2005). In this study, we use input-output analysis to model the impacts of energy subsidy removal and/or energy price shocks on household quintiles via induced price changes in household expenditure items.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the distributional effects of energy taxes and subsidy removal in Latin America and the Caribbean

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the distributional effects of energy taxes and subsidy removal in Latin America and the Caribbean

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The increased expenditure due to a carbon price is mostly paid by household consumers (in contrast to the other final demand categories: governments and capital investments), especially in the electricity sector Regional carbon price (billion $) Regional carbon price (billion $) Regional carbon price (billion $) ( figure 2), which has also been the case for implemented taxes in OECD nations (Svendsen et al 2001, Wang et al 2016. For coal, oil and gas, households pay 57%, 60% and 65% of the increased expenditure, respectively, in 2011.…”

Section: Global Carbon Price Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributions of carbon pricing on extraction, combustion and consumption of fossil fuels in the global supply-chain

Karstensen

Peters

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pricing carbon is one of the most important tools to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change. Already, about 40 nations have implemented explicit or implicit carbon prices, and a carbon price was explicitly stated as a mitigation strategy by many nations in their emission pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement. The coverage of carbon prices varies significantly between nations though, often only covering a subset of sectors in the economy. We investigate the propagation of carbon prices along the global supply-chain when the carbon price is applied at the point where carbon is removed from the ground (extraction), is combusted (production), or where goods and services are consumed (consumption). We consider both the regional and sectoral effects, and compare the carbon price income and costs relative to economic output. We find that implementation using different accounting systems makes a significant difference to revenues and increased expenditure, and that domestic and global trade plays a significant role in spreading the carbon price between sectors and countries. A few single sectors experience the largest relative price increases (especially electricity and transport), but most of the carbon price is ultimately paid by households for goods and services due to the large expenditure and indirect supply chain impacts. We finally show that a global carbon price will generate a larger share of revenue relative to GDP in non-OECD nations than OECD nations, independent on the point of implementation.

show abstract

“…Casillas and Kammen (2012) argue that low-income people who depend on agriculture and weather patterns to earn a living will be most vulnerable to climate change impacts, and equity should be a central consideration for GHG mitigation strategies. Another example of research in this space is the work of Wang et al (2016) indicating that some climate change mitigation measures, such as carbon taxes, can make lower income groups being more affected if the tax revenue is not well used. Weber and Matthews (2008) linked American household consumption to their global carbon footprint and also indicated that climate mitigation policies such as carbon tax will have important impacts on people's income distributions.…”

Section: Distributional Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation: a review and classification by type, mitigation sector, and geography

Deng

Liang

Liu

et al. 2017

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceived inability of climate change mitigation goals alone to mobilize sufficient climate change mitigation efforts has, among other factors, led to growing research on the co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study conducts a systematic review (SR) of the literature on the co-benefits of mitigating GHG emissions resulting in 1554 papers. We analyze these papers using bibliometric analysis, including a keyword co-occurrence analysis. We then iteratively develop and present a typology of co-benefits, mitigation sectors, geographic scope, and methods based on the manual double coding of the papers resulting from the SR. We find that the co-benefits from GHG mitigation that have received the largest attention of researchers are impacts on ecosystems, economic activity, health, air pollution, and resource efficiency. The co-benefits that have received the least attention include the impacts on conflict and disaster resilience, poverty alleviation (or exacerbation), energy security, technological spillovers and innovation, and food security. Most research has investigated co-benefits from GHG mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), electricity, transport, and residential sectors, with the industrial sector being the subject of significantly less research. The largest number of co-benefits publications provide analysis at a global level, with relatively few studies providing local (city) level analysis or studying co-benefits in Oceanian or African contexts. Finally, science and engineering methods, in contrast to economic or social science methods, are the methods most commonly employed in co-benefits papers. We conclude that given the potential mobilizing power of understudied co-benefits (e.g. poverty alleviation) and local impacts, the magnitude of GHG emissions from the industrial sector, and the fact that Africa and South America are likely to be severely affected by climate change, there is an opportunity for the research community to fill these gaps.

show abstract

Distributional effects of carbon taxation

Cited by 173 publications

References 104 publications

Managing the distributional effects of energy taxes and subsidy removal in Latin America and the Caribbean

Managing the distributional effects of energy taxes and subsidy removal in Latin America and the Caribbean

Distributions of carbon pricing on extraction, combustion and consumption of fossil fuels in the global supply-chain

Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation: a review and classification by type, mitigation sector, and geography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About