Preview

Экономическая политика

Расширенный поиск

Comparing Carbon Regulation Scenarios for BRICS and EAEU Economies Using a GTAP-E Model

https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2024-1-66-91

Аннотация

The paper compares the economic effects of a national carbon tax with those of an emission trading system (ETS) between EAEU and BRICS countries over the medium term. Also included are Uzbekistan, which has observer status in the EAEU, and Turkmenistan, which is an EAEU trade and economic partner. The static computable general equilibrium model GTAP-E is employed. Targets for reducing emissions are formulated on the basis of the countries’ intermediate goals as stated in their respective submissions under the Paris Agreement. The resulting simulations show that, in terms of real GDP, an emission trading scheme would be more favorable than national taxation for countries such as Brazil, India, Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. However, for China, South Africa, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, resorting to an ETS would produce a comparatively greater reduction in GDP. Because the second group of countries has lower abatement costs than the equilibrium carbon price under an ETS, that scenario would permit those countries to reduce emissions by a greater amount and sell emission allowances. The analysis also shows which sectors would increase production after carbon regulation. A considerable increase in production and exports would occur for chemicals and for ferrous and nonferrous metals in several BRICS and EAEU countries. Although those industries are energy-intensive, the countries concerned could decrease emissions by reducing production in the energy or other sectors. These industries could benefit from potential joint comparative advantages in the context of declining demand for traditional energy sources. These findings should be valuable in devising integration policy. 

Ключевые слова


JEL: D58, F11, Q43, Q48, Q56

Об авторе

А. Давыдова
Lomonosov Moscow State University; Russian Foreign Trade Academy of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation
Россия

Алтана Давыдова



Список литературы

1. Aguiar A., Corong E., McDougall R. Guide to the GTAP Data Base. Global Trade Analysis Project, 2019.

2. Antimiani A., Costantini V., Martini C., Palma A., Tommasino M. C. The GTAP-E: Model Description and Improvements. The Dynamics of Environmental and Economic Systems: Innovation, Environmental Policy and Competitiveness, 2013, pp. 3-24. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5089-0_1.

3. Bashmakov I., Dzedzichek M., Myshak A., Bashmakov V. Sanctions and CBAM: Implications for the Russian Industry. Moscow, Center for Energy Efficiency - XXI (CENEf - XXI), 2022.

4. Böhringer C., Rutherford T. F., Tarr D. G., Turdyeva N. Market Structure and the Environmental Implications of Trade Liberalization: Russia’s Accession to the World Trade Organization. Review of International Economics, 2015, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 897-923. DOI: 10.1111/roie.12197.

5. Burniaux J. M., Truong T. P. GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model. Global Trade Analysis Project, Technical Papers, no. 16, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21642/GTAP.TP16.

6. Copeland B. R., Shapiro J. S., Taylor M. S. Globalization and the Environment. NBER, Working Paper Series, no. 28797, 2021. DOI: 10.3386/w28797.

7. Cunha Montenegro R., Lekavičius V., Brajković J., Fahl U., Hufendiek K. Long-Term Distributional Impacts of European Cap-and-Trade Climate Policies: A CGE Multi-Regional Analysis. Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11, no. 23, p. 6868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236868.

8. Fragkos P., Tasios N., Paroussos L., Capros P., Tsani S. Energy System Impacts and Policy Implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and Low-Carbon Pathway to 2050. Energy Policy, 2017, vol. 100, pp. 216-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.023.

9. Hertel T., Hummels D., Ivanic M., Keeney R. How Confident Can We Be of CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements? Economic Modelling, 2007, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 611-635. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2006.12.002.

10. Kapsalyamova Z., Bakdolotov A., Shuneyev C. Implications of the Emission Reduction Policies for a Fossil Fuel Abundant Economy. In: The 22nd Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, June 19-21, 2019. Global Trade Analysis Project, 2019.

11. Knobel A. Yu., Chokaev B. V. Vozmozhnye ekonomicheskie posledstviya torgovogo soglasheniya mezhdu Tamozhennym i Evropeyskim soyuzami [Possible Economic Effects of a CU-EU Trade Agreement]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2014, no. 2, pp. 68-87. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2014-2-68-87. (In Russ.)

12. Knobel A. Yu., Sedalishchev V. V. Riski i vygody dlya EAES ot razlichnykh stsenariev integratsii v Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskom regione [Risks and Benefits for the EAEU From Various Integration Scenarios in the Asia-Pacific Region]. Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2017, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 72-85. DOI: 10.18288/1994-5124-2017-2-03. (In Russ.)

13. Lallana F., Bravo G., Le Treut G., Lefèvre J., Nadal G., Di Sbroiavacca N. Exploring Deep Decarbonization Pathways for Argentina. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2021, vol. 36, 100670. DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2021.100670

14. Ma Z., Cai S., Ye W., Gu A. Linking Emissions Trading Schemes: Economic Valuation of a Joint China-Japan-Korea Carbon Market. Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11, no. 19, p. 5303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195303.

15. Makarov I., Chen H., Paltsev S. Impacts of Climate Change Policies Worldwide on the Russian Economy. Climate Policy, 2020, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1242-1256. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1781047.

16. McDougall R., Golub A. GTAP-E: A Revised Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, 2007, GTAP Research Memorandum, no. 15. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=2959.

17. Mu Y., Evans S., Wang C., Cai W. How Will Sectoral Coverage Affect the Efficiency of an Emissions Trading System? A CGE-Based Case Study of China. Applied Energy, 2018, vol. 227, pp. 403-414. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.072.

18. Nong D. Development of the Electricity-Environmental Policy CGE Model (GTAP-E-PowerS): A Case of the Carbon Tax in South Africa. Energy Policy, 2020, vol. 140, p. 111375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111375.

19. Nong D., Siriwardana M. Environmental and Economic Impacts of a Joint Emissions Trading Scheme. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 2017, vol. 40, no. 3-4, pp. 184-206. DOI: 10.1504/IJGEI.2017.10007704.

20. Nordhaus W. Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free Riding in International Climate Policy. American Economic Review, 2015, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 1339-1370. DOI: 10.1257/aer.15000001.

21. Nordhaus W. Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006, vol. 103, no. 10, pp. 3510-3517. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509842103.

22. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Effective Carbon Rates: Pricing CO2 Through Taxes and Emissions Trading Systems. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260115-en.

23. Paltsev S., Kalinina E. Prognozirovanie emissiy parnikovykh gazov: Rossiya v global’noy sisteme [GHG Emissions Projection: Russia in a Global System]. In: I. Bashmakov (ed.). Zatraty i vygody nizkouglerodnoy ekonomiki i transformatsii obshchestva v Rossii. Perspektivy do i posle 2050 [Costs and Benefits of a Low-Carbon Economy and Societal Transformation in Russia. The View From 2050]. Moscow, CENEf, 2014, pp. 153-169. (In Russ.)

24. Parry I. W. H., Black S., Zhunussova K. Carbon Taxes or Emissions Trading Systems? Instrument Choice and Design. IMF Staff Climate Notes, 2022, no. 006. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400212307.066.

25. Siriwardana M., Nong D. Economic Implications for Australia and Other Major Emitters of Trading Greenhouse Gas Emissions Internationally. International Journal of Global Warming, 2018, vol. 16, no. 3. pp. 261-280. DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2018.095384.

26. Thierfelder K. E., McDonald S., Robinson S. Taxing Energy Use and Carbon Emissions to Reduce Global CO2 Levels. Annapolis, United States Naval Academy, 2021.

27. Turdyeva N., Shkrebela I. GTAP 7 Data Base Documentation-Chapter 7 I-O Table: Russian Federation. Center for Global Trade Analysis, West Lafayette, Purdue University, 2009.

28. Vinokurov E., Albrecht C., Zaboev A., Klochkova E., Malakhov A., Pereboev V. Global’naya zelenaya povestka v Evraziyskom regione. Evraziyskiy region v global’noy zelenoy povestke [Global Green Agenda in the Eurasian Region. The Eurasian Region in the Global Green Agenda]. Almaty, Eurasian Development Bank, 2023. (In Russ.)

29. Volchkova N., Kuznetsova P., Turdyeva N. Economic Integration and New Export Opportunities for the Eurasian Economic Union. International Organizations Research Journal, 2016, vol. 11, no. 4. pp. 127-148. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2016-04-127.

30. Xu H., Pan X., Li J., Feng S., Guo S. Comparing the Impacts of Carbon Tax and Carbon Emission Trading. Which Regulation Is More Effective? Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, vol. 330, p. 117156. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117156.

31. Zhang X., Qi T. Y., Ou X. M., Zhang X. L. The Role of Multi-Region Integrated Emissions Trading Scheme: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Applied Energy, 2017, vol. 185, pp. 1860-1868. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.092.


Рецензия

Для цитирования:


Давыдова А. Comparing Carbon Regulation Scenarios for BRICS and EAEU Economies Using a GTAP-E Model. Экономическая политика. 2024;19(1):66-91. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2024-1-66-91

For citation:


Davydova A.Y. Comparing Carbon Regulation Scenarios for BRICS and EAEU Economies Using a GTAP-E Model. Economic Policy. 2024;19(1):66-91. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2024-1-66-91

Просмотров: 155


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1994-5124 (Print)
ISSN 2411-2658 (Online)