The Relative Merits of Carbon Pricing Instruments: Taxes versus Trading

IF 7.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1086/717773
Robert Stavins
{"title":"The Relative Merits of Carbon Pricing Instruments: Taxes versus Trading","authors":"Robert Stavins","doi":"10.1086/717773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is widespread agreement among most economists that economy-wide carbon pricing will be a necessary (although not necessarily sufficient) component of any policy that can achieve meaningful and cost-effective CO2 reductions in large, complex economies. But there is less agreement about which of two carbon pricing instruments will be better. Some support carbon taxes, while others favor cap-and-trade. How do these two pricing approaches compare? In this survey and synthesis of theory and experience, I show that when carbon taxes and carbon cap-and-trade systems are designed in ways that make them truly comparable, their characteristics and outcomes are similar and, in some respects, fully equivalent. But the two approaches can perform quite differently along some specific dimensions, sometimes favoring taxes and sometimes cap-and-trade. The key differences in performance depend on details of program design. Indeed, what appears at first glance to be a dichotomous choice between two distinct instruments can turn out to be a choice of specific design elements along a policy continuum.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717773","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

There is widespread agreement among most economists that economy-wide carbon pricing will be a necessary (although not necessarily sufficient) component of any policy that can achieve meaningful and cost-effective CO2 reductions in large, complex economies. But there is less agreement about which of two carbon pricing instruments will be better. Some support carbon taxes, while others favor cap-and-trade. How do these two pricing approaches compare? In this survey and synthesis of theory and experience, I show that when carbon taxes and carbon cap-and-trade systems are designed in ways that make them truly comparable, their characteristics and outcomes are similar and, in some respects, fully equivalent. But the two approaches can perform quite differently along some specific dimensions, sometimes favoring taxes and sometimes cap-and-trade. The key differences in performance depend on details of program design. Indeed, what appears at first glance to be a dichotomous choice between two distinct instruments can turn out to be a choice of specific design elements along a policy continuum.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
碳定价工具的相对优势:税收与交易
大多数经济学家普遍认为,对于任何能够在大型复杂经济体中实现有意义且具有成本效益的二氧化碳减排的政策来说,经济范围内的碳定价都是必要的(尽管不一定是充分的)组成部分。但是,对于两种碳定价工具中哪一种更好,人们的意见并不一致。一些人支持碳税,而另一些人则支持限额与交易。这两种定价方法比较起来如何?在对理论和经验的调查和综合中,我表明,当碳税和碳限额与交易制度的设计方式使它们真正具有可比性时,它们的特征和结果是相似的,在某些方面是完全等同的。但这两种方法在某些特定方面的表现可能截然不同,有时倾向于税收,有时倾向于总量管制与交易。性能上的关键差异取决于程序设计的细节。事实上,乍一看似乎是在两种截然不同的工具之间的二分选择,结果可能是在政策连续体中对特定设计元素的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy fills the gap between traditional academic journals and the general interest press by providing a widely accessible yet scholarly source for the latest thinking on environmental economics and related policy. The Review publishes symposia, articles, and regular features that contribute to one or more of the following goals: •to identify and synthesize lessons learned from recent and ongoing environmental economics research; •to provide economic analysis of environmental policy issues; •to promote the sharing of ideas and perspectives among the various sub-fields of environmental economics;
期刊最新文献
Revisiting EPA’s Value per Statistical Life The Roles of Environmental Groups in Economics A New Era of Economic Measurement for the Environment and Natural Capital Visualizing Causal Hypotheses in Environmental Econometrics Using Geospatial Methods in Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1