Barron Alexander R, Fawcett Allen A, Hafstead Marc A C, McFarland James R, Morris Adele C
Environmental Science and Policy Program, Smith College 44 College Lane, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Clim Chang Econ (Singap). 2018 Feb;9(1). doi: 10.1142/S2010007818400031. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum exercise 32 (EMF 32) used 11 different models to assess emissions, energy, and economic outcomes from a plausible range of economy-wide carbon price policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO) emissions in the United States. Here we discuss the most policy-relevant results of the study, mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of current models. Across all models, carbon prices lead to significant reductions in CO emissions and conventional pollutants, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity sector. Importantly, emissions reductions do not significantly depend on the rebate or tax cut used to return revenues to the economy. Expected economic costs, as modeled by either GDP or welfare, are modest, but vary across models. These costs are offset by benefits from avoided climate damages and health benefits from reductions in conventional air pollution. Using revenues to reduce preexisting capital or labor taxes reduces costs in most models relative to lump-sum rebates, but the size of the cost reductions varies significantly. Devoting at least some revenue to household rebates can significantly reduce adverse impacts on low income households. Carbon prices at $25/ton or even lower levels cause significant shifts away from coal as an energy source with responses of other energy sources highly dependent upon technology cost assumptions. Beyond 2030, we conclude that model uncertainties are too large to make quantitative results useful for near-term policy design. We close by describing recommendations for policymakers on interacting with model results in the future.
斯坦福能源建模论坛第32次研讨会(EMF 32)使用了11种不同模型,来评估一系列合理的全经济范围碳价政策在美国减少二氧化碳(CO)排放方面的排放、能源和经济成果。在此,我们讨论该研究中与政策最为相关的结果,并留意当前模型的优缺点。在所有模型中,碳价导致CO排放和常规污染物大幅减少,其中绝大多数减排发生在电力部门。重要的是,减排并不显著取决于用于将收入返还给经济的退税或减税措施。以GDP或福利来衡量的预期经济成本适中,但各模型有所不同。这些成本被避免的气候损害带来的益处以及常规空气污染减少带来的健康益处所抵消。在大多数模型中,相对于一次性退税,使用收入来减少现有资本税或劳动税会降低成本,但成本降低的幅度差异很大。将至少部分收入用于家庭退税可显著减少对低收入家庭的不利影响。每吨25美元甚至更低水平的碳价会导致能源来源显著从煤炭转向其他能源,其他能源的反应高度依赖技术成本假设。到2030年以后,我们得出结论,模型的不确定性太大,以至于定量结果对近期政策设计没有用处。我们最后描述了对政策制定者未来如何与模型结果互动的建议。