Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments – Nature.com

  • 1.

    Vrontisi, Z. et al. Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044039 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Pearce, D. The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ. J. 101, 938–948 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Weyant, J. Costs of reducing global carbon emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 7, 27–46 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (World Bank, 2020); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809

  • 5.

    Effective Carbon Rates 2021: Pricing Carbon Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading (OECD, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1787/0e8e24f5-en

  • 6.

    Hoel, M. Global environmental problems: the effects of unilateral actions taken by one country. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 20, 55–70 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Pezzey, J. Analysis of unilateral CO2 control in the European Community. Energy J. 13, 159–172 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Bohm, P. Incomplete international cooperation to reduce CO2 emissions: alternative policies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 24, 258–271 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Felder, S. & Rutherford, T. F. Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: the consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25, 162–176 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473–495 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Gerlagh, R. & Kuik, O. Spill or leak? Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers: a CGE analysis. Energy Econ. 45, 381–388 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Lockwood, B. & Whalley, J. Carbon-motivated border tax adjustments: old wine in green bottles? World Econ. 33, 810–819 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Markusen, J. International externalities and optimal tax structures. J. Int. Econ. 5, 15–29 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Hoel, M. Should a carbon tax be differentiated across sectors? J. Public Econ. 59, 17–32 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Keen, M. & Kotsogiannis, C. Coordinating climate and trade policies: Pareto efficiency and the role of border tax adjustments. J. Int. Econ. 94, 119–128 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (European Commission, 2021); https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_21_3666

  • 17.

    Shapiro, J. S. The environmental bias of trade policy. Q. J. Econ. 136, 831–886 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 18.

    Pauwelyn, J. in Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO (eds Van Calster, G. & Prévost, D.) 448–506 (Edward Elgar, 2013).

  • 19.

    Holzer, K. Carbon-Related Border Adjustment and WTO Law (Edward Elgar, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Pauwelyn, J. & Kleimann, D. Trade Related Aspects of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Legal Assessment (European Parliament, 2020); https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/603502/EXPO_BRI(2020)603502_EN.pdf

  • 21.

    Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C. & Munnings, C. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13, 3–22 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Bierbrauer, F., Felbermayr, G., Ockenfels, A. Schmidt, K. M. & Südekum, J. A CO2 Border Adjustment as a Building Block of a Climate Club Kiel Policy Brief 151 (Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 2021).

  • 23.

    Ismer, R. & Neuhoff, K. Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur. J. Law Econ. 24, 137–164 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Fischer, C. & Fox, A. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64, 199–216 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Martin, R., Muûls, M., Preux, L. Bde & Wagner, U. J. Industry compensation under re-location risk: a firm-level analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 2482–2508 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E. L., McDougall, R. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. The GTAP data base: Version 10. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.21642/JGEA.040101AF (2019).

  • 27.

    Fowlie, M. L. & Reguant, M. Mitigating emissions leakage in incomplete carbon markets. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1086/716765 (2021).

  • 28.

    Welsch, H. Armington elasticities for energy policy modeling: evidence from four European countries. Energy Econ. 30, 2252–2264 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Fischer, C. & Fox, A. How trade sensitive are energy-intensive sectors? AEA Papers Proc. 108, 130–135 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Feenstra, R. C., Luck, P., Obstfeld, M. & Russ, K. N. In search of the Armington elasticity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 100, 135–150 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Yilmazkuday, H. Estimating the trade elasticity over time. Econ. Lett. 183, 108579 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Bajzik, J., Havranek, T., Irsova, Z. & Schwarz, J. Estimating the Armington elasticity: the importance of study design and publication bias. J. Int. Econ. 127, 103383 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Fowlie, M. L. & Reguant, M. Climate policy and trade: challenges in the measurement of leakage risk. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 124–129 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Aichele, R. & Felbermayr, G. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63, 336–354 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Aichele, R. & Felbermayr, G. Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97, 104–115 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Branger, F., Quirion, P. & Chevallier, J. Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: much ado about nothing. Energy J. 37, 109–135 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Healy, S., Schumacher, K. & Eichhammer, W. Analysis of carbon leakage under Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System: trading patterns in the cement and aluminium sectors. Energies 11, 1231 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Naegele, H. & Zaklan, A. Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93, 125–147 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Dechezleprêtre, A., Gennaioli, C., Martin, R., Muuls, M. & Stoerk, T. Searching for Carbon Leaks in Multinational Companies CEP Discussion Paper 1601 (Centre for Economic Performance, 2019).

  • 40.

    Venmans, F., Ellis, J. & Nachtigall, D. Carbon pricing and competitiveness: are they at odds? Clim. Pol. 20, 1070–1091 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Shoven, J. B. & Whalley, J. Applying General Equilibrium (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Dixon, P. B. & Jorgenson, D. W. Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling Vols 1A and 1B (Elsevier, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97–S110 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Condon, M. & Ignaciuk, A. Border Carbon Adjustment and International Trade: A Literature Review OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2013/06 (OECD, 2013).

  • 45.

    Branger, F. & Quirion, P. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99, 29–39 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Carbone, J. C. & Rivers, N. The impacts of unilateral climate policy on competitiveness: evidence from computable general equilibrium models. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 24–42 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Babiker, M. H. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J. Int. Econ. 65, 421–445 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • 48.

    Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. Subglobal carbon policy and the competitive selection of heterogeneous firms. Energy Econ. 34, S190–S197 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Balistreri, E. J., Böhringer, C. & Rutherford, T. F. Carbon policy and the structure of global trade. World Econ. 41, 194–221 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. The global effects of subglobal climate policies. B. E. J. Economic Anal. Policy 10, 1–35 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Weitzel, M., Hübler, M. & Peterson, S. Fair, optimal or detrimental? Environmental vs. strategic use of border carbon adjustment. Energy Econ. 34, S198–S207 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Boeters, S. & Bollen, J. Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy. Energy Econ. 43, S181–S189 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 53.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318–339 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 54.

    Demailly, D. & Quirion, P. CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Clim. Pol. 6, 93–113 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • 55.

    Ponssard, J. P. & Walker, N. EU emissions trading and the cement sector: a spatial competition analysis. Clim. Pol. 8, 467–493 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • 56.

    Larch, M. & Wanner, J. Carbon tariffs: an analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects. J. Int. Econ. 109, 195–213 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 57.

    Böhringer, C., Schneider, J. & Asane-Otoo, E. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. Environ. Resour. Econ. 78, 669–708 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 58.

    Monjon, S. & Quirion, P. Addressing leakage in the EU ETS: border adjustment or output-based allocation? Ecol. Econ. 70, 1957–1971 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • 59.

    Lanz, B., Rutherford, T. F. & Tilton, J. E. Subglobal climate agreements and energy‐intensive activities: an evaluation of carbon leakage in the copper industry. World Econ. 36, 254–279 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • 60.

    Lyubich, E., Shapiro, J. S. & Walker, R. Regulating mis-measured pollution: implications of firm heterogeneity for environmental policy. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 136–42 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 61.

    Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354–359 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 62.

    Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51–73 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 63.

    Fowlie, M. L., Petersen, C. & Reguant, M. Border carbon adjustments when carbon intensity varies across producers: evidence from California. AEA Papers Proc. 111, 401–405 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 64.

    Fouré, J., Guimbard, H. & Monjon, S. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: what would be the cost for the European Union? Energy Econ. 54, 349–362 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 65.

    Burniaux, J. M., Chateau, J. & Duval, R. Is there a case for carbon-based border tax adjustment? An applied general equilibrium analysis. Appl. Econ. 45, 2231–2240 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • 66.

    Böhringer, C., Müller, A. & Schneider, J. Carbon tariffs revisited. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 629–672 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 67.

    McKibbin, W. J., Morris, A. C., Wilcoxen, P. J. & Liu, W. The role of border carbon adjustments in a U.S. carbon tax. Clim. Change Econ. 9, 1840011 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 68.

    Limão, N. in New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online 2nd edn (eds Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E.) (Macmillan, 2008).

  • 69.

    Lanzi, E., Chateau, J. & Dellink, R. Alternative approaches for levelling carbon prices in a world with fragmented carbon markets. Energy Econ. 34, S240–S250 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 70.

    Böhringer, C., Carbone, J. C. & Rutherford, T. F. Embodied carbon tariffs. Scand. J. Econ. 120, 183–210 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • 71.

    Balistreri, E. J., Kaffine, D. T. & Yonezawa, H. Optimal environmental border adjustments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Environ. Resour. Econ. 74, 1037–1075 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 72.

    Mehling, M., Asselt, H., Das, K., Droege, S. & Verkuijl, C. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am. J. Int. Law 113, 433–481 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • 73.

    Helm, D., Hepburn, C. & Ruta, G. Trade, climate change, and the political game theory of border carbon adjustments. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2, 368–394 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • 74.

    Al Khourdajie, A. & Finus, M. International environmental agreements and carbon border adjustments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124, 102405 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 75.

    Lessmann, K., Marschinski, R. & Edenhofer, O. The effects of tariffs on coalition formation in a dynamic global warming game. Econ. Model. 26, 641–649 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • 76.

    Irfanoglu, Z. B., Sesmero, J. P. & Golub, A. Potential of border tax adjustments to deter free riding in international climate agreements. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 024009 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 77.

    Böhringer, C., Carbone, J. C. & Rutherford, T. F. The strategic value of carbon tariffs. Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Pol. 8, 28–51 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • 78.

    Nordhaus, W. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1339–1370 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • 79.

    Böhringer, C. & Rutherford, T.F. Paris after Trump: An Inconvenient Insight CESifo Working Paper 6531 (CESifo, 2017).

  • 80.

    Hagen, A. & Schneider, J. Trade sanctions and the stability of climate coalitions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109, 102504 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 81.

    Hübner, C. Perception of the Planned EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in Asia Pacific—An Expert Survey (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2021); https://www.kas.de/documents/265079/265128/EU+Carbon+Border+Adjustment+Mechanism.pdf/fed1d5a4-4424-c450-a1b9-b7dbd3616179?version=1.1&t=1615356593906

  • 82.

    Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K. E. & Storrøsten, H. B. Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. J. Public Econ. 149, 35–46 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 83.

    Ismer, R., Neuhoff, K. & Pirlot, A. Border Carbon Adjustments and Alternative Measures for the EU-ETS: An Evaluation DIW Discussion Paper 1855 (DIW, 2020).

  • 84.

    Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K. E. & Storrøsten, H. B. Smart hedging against carbon leakage. Econ. Pol. 36, 439–484 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 85.

    Stede, J., Pauliuk, S., Hardadi, G. & Neuhoff, K. Carbon pricing of basic materials: incentives and risks for the value chain and consumers. Ecol. Econ. 189, 107168 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • 86.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rivers, N. Intensity-Based Rebating Working Paper 21–37 (RFF, 2021).

  • 87.

    GTAP 10 Data Base (Global Trade Analysis Project, 2014); https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v10/index.aspx

  • Original News Source Link