Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:18:01.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intermediate input linkage and carbon leakage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Zengkai Zhang  and
Zhongxiang Zhang
Zengkai Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, China. E-mail: zengkaizhang@tju.edu.cn
Zhongxiang Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Management and Economics; and China Academy of Energy, Environmental and Industrial Economics, Tianjin University, 92 Weijin Road, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mail: ZhangZX@tju.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Climate regulations tend to target energy-intensive sectors whose products are widely used in industrial production as intermediate inputs, and carbon abatement may be partially offset by intermediate input-led leakage. This paper aims to examine the impact of intermediate input linkages on carbon leakage both theoretically and empirically. The theoretical part develops a Harberger-type model with an input-output linkage structure, identifies four leakage effects and derives closed-form solutions for these leakage effects. Its empirical part builds a computable general equilibrium model of China's economy and introduces structural decomposition analysis to link the theoretical and empirical models. When imposing a carbon price on the electricity generation sector, our results show significant sectoral carbon leakage. Our decomposition analysis further suggests that such leakage is mainly through the production substitution effect and the multiplier effect. Our results highlight the importance of sectoral linkage when discussing the carbon leakage issue of climate policies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 22 , Special Issue 6: Recent Advances in Empirical Analysis on Growth and Environment , December 2017 , pp. 725 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antimiani, A., Costantini, V., Martini, C., Salvatici, L., and Tommasino, M.C. (2013), ‘Assessing alternative solutions to carbon leakage’, Energy Economics 36: 299–311.Google Scholar
Babiker, M.H. (2001), ‘Subglobal climate-change actions and carbon leakage: the implication of international capital flows’, Energy Economics 23(2): 121–139.Google Scholar
Barker, T., Junankar, S., Pollitt, H., and Summerton, P. (2007), ‘Carbon leakage from unilateral environmental tax reforms in Europe, 1995–2005’, Energy Policy 35(12): 6281–6292.Google Scholar
Baylis, K., Fullerton, D., and Karney, D.H. (2013), ‘Leakage, welfare, and cost-effectiveness of carbon policy’, American Economic Review 103: 332–337.Google Scholar
Baylis, K., Fullerton, D., and Karney, D.H. (2014), ‘Negative leakage’, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1: 51–73.Google Scholar
Beckman, J., Hertel, T., and Tyner, W. (2011), ‘Validating energy-oriented CGE models’, Energy Economics 33: 799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, P.M., Montgomery, W.D., and Rutherford, T.F. (1999), ‘Global impacts of the Kyoto agreement: results from the MS-MRT model’, Resource and Energy Economics 21 (3–4): 375–413.Google Scholar
Böhringer, C., Müller, A., and Schneider, J. (2014), ‘Carbon tariffs revisited’, Oldenburg Discussion Papers in Economics No. V-364-14, University of Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Böhringer, C., Rivers, N., and Onezawa, Y.H. (2016), ‘Vertical fiscal externalities and the environment’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 77: 51–74.Google Scholar
Bruvoll, A. and Faehn, T. (2006), ‘Transboundary effects of environmental policy: markets and emission leakages’, Ecological Economics 59(4): 499–510.Google Scholar
Bushnell, J.B. and Mansur, E.T. (2011), ‘Vertical targeting and leakage in carbon policy’, American Economic Review 101(3): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, J.C. (2013), ‘Linking numerical and analytical models of carbon leakage’, American Economic Review 103(3): 326–331.Google Scholar
Central Committee of Communist Party of China and The State Council (2015), ‘Several opinions on further deepening the reform of the electric power system’, March, [Available at] http://www.ne21.com/news/show-64828.html.Google Scholar
Chumacero, R.A. and Schmidt-Hebbel, K. (2004), ‘General equilibrium models: an overview’, Working Paper No. 307, Central Bank of Chile.Google Scholar
Di Maria, C. and van der Werf, E. (2008), ‘Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change’, Environmental and Resource Economics 39: 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dröge, S., Asselt, H.V., Schumacher, K., Brewer, T., and Mohr, L. (2009), ‘Tackling leakage in a world of unequal carbon prices’, Climate Strategies 1: 2–16.Google Scholar
Eichner, T. and Pethig, R. (2015), ‘Unilateral consumption-based carbon taxes and negative leakage’, Resource and Energy Economics 40: 127–142.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. and Fullerton, D. (2014), ‘Can a unilateral carbon tax reduce emissions elsewhere?’, Resource and Energy Economics 36: 6–21.Google Scholar
Fullerton, D. and Heutel, G. (2007), ‘The general equilibrium incidence of environmental taxes’, Journal of Public Economics 91 (3–4): 571–591.Google Scholar
Fullerton, D. and Monti, H. (2013), ‘Can pollution tax rebates protect low-wage earners?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66: 539–553.Google Scholar
Gerlagh, R. and Kuik, O. (2014), ‘Spill or leak? Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers: a CGE analysis’, Energy Economics 45: 381–388.Google Scholar
Golombek, R. and Hoel, M. (2004), ‘Unilateral emission reductions and cross-country technology spillovers’, B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 3(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Harberger, A.C. (1962), ‘The incidence of the corporation income tax’, Journal of Political Economy 70: 215–240.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, R. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2003), ‘Comparing structural decomposition analysis and index’, Energy Economics 25(1): 39–64.Google Scholar
IPCC (2006), ‘The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 Guidelines)’, [Available at] http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/.Google Scholar
Karney, D.H. (2016), ‘General equilibrium models with Morishima elasticities of substitution in production’, Economic Modelling 53: 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, L. (2013), ‘The income and production effects of leakage’, [Available at] https://are.berkeley.edu/~karp/leakage_aug__2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Kortum, S. (2011), ‘Comment on “Analytical general equilibrium effects of energy policy on output and factor prices”’, B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10(2).Google Scholar
Kuik, O. and Gerlagh, R. (2003), ‘Trade liberalization and carbon leakage’, Energy Journal 24: 97–120.Google Scholar
Lanzi, E. and Wing, I.S. (2013), ‘Capital malleability, emission leakage and the cost of partial climate policies: general equilibrium analysis of the European Union emission trading system’, Environmental and Resource Economics 55(2): 257–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. and He, J. (2010), Computable General Equilibrium Model and its Application in China, Beijing: Economic Science Press.Google Scholar
Lv, Z., Guo, J., and Xi, Y. (2009), ‘Econometric estimate and selection on China energy CES production function’, China Population Resources and Environment 19: 156–160.Google Scholar
Mathiesen, L. and Mæstad, O. (2004), ‘Climate policy and the steel industry: achieving global emission reductions by an incomplete climate agreement’, Energy Journal 25: 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, G., Ponssard, J.P., and Quirion, P. (2014), ‘Carbon leakage and capacity-based allocations: is the EU right?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 68: 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michielsen, T.O. (2014), ‘Brown backstops versus the green paradox’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 68: 87–110.Google Scholar
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China) (2008), China Energy Statistical Year Book 2008, Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
Qi, S. and Cheng, S. (2015), ‘Comparative studies in China's pilot emissions trading schemes’, Annual Review of Low-Carbon Development in China 2015, [Available at] http://www.brookings.edu/.Google Scholar
Rausch, S. and Schwarz, G.A. (2016), ‘Household heterogeneity, aggregation, and the distributional impacts of environmental taxes’, Journal of Public Economics 138: 43–57.Google Scholar
Sen, P. (2015), ‘Unilateral emission cuts and carbon leakages in a dynamic North–South trade model’, Environmental and Resource Economics 60: 1–22.Google Scholar
Sijm, J.P.M., Kuik, O.J., Patel, M., et al. . (2004), ‘Spillovers of climate policy – an assessment of the incidence of carbon leakage and induced technological change due to CO2 abatement measures’, Report No. 500036 002 (ECN-C–05-014), Netherlands Research Programme on Climate Change, Sint Maartensvlotbrug.Google Scholar
Council, State (2016), ‘A circular on work options to lower the cost of firms in the real economy’, 8 August, [Available at] http://yxj.ndrc.gov.cn/zttp/jdjjcbgz/zccs/201608/t20160829_816307.html.Google Scholar
Stern, D.I. (2012), ‘Interfuel substitution: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Economic Surveys 26: 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarr, D. (2012), ‘Putting services and foreign direct investment with endogenous productivity effects in computable general equilibrium models’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6012, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015), ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, [Available at] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.Google Scholar
World Bank (2015), ‘Carbon leakage: theory, evidence, and policy design’, [Available at] http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/10/25189663/carbon-leakage-theory-evidence-policy-design.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Fan, Y., and Xia, Y. (2016), ‘The economic effects of initial quota allocations on carbon emissions trading in China’, Energy Journal 37: 129–151.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. and Dietzenbacher, E. (2014), ‘A structural decomposition analysis of the emissions embodied in trade’, Ecological Economics 101: 10–20.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2012), ‘Competitiveness and leakage concerns and border carbon adjustments’, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 6(3): 225–287.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2014), ‘Energy prices, subsidies and resource tax reform in China’, Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies 1(3): 439–454.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2015a), ‘Crossing the river by feeling the stones: the case of carbon trading in China’, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 17(2): 263–297.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. (2015b), ‘Carbon emissions trading in China: the evolution from pilots to a nationwide scheme’, Climate Policy 15 (suppl. 1): S104–S126.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Guo, J., Qian, D., Xue, Y., and Cai, L. (2013), ‘Effects and mechanism of influence of China's resource tax reform: a regional perspective’, Energy Economics 36(C): 676–685.Google Scholar