Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125807
|
| Title: | 東亞深度減碳政策對所得分配之影響
The Income Distribution Impacts of Deep Decarbonization Policy in East Asia |
| Authors: | 傅俞瑄
Fu, Yu-Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 蕭代基
Shaw, Dai-Gee
傅俞瑄
Fu, Yu-Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 氣候變遷
環境稅制改革
發電躉購補貼制度
能源政策
所得分配
Climate Change
Carbon Tax
Feed-in Tariffs
Energy Policy
Income Distribution |
| Date: | 2019 |
| Issue Date: | 2019-09-05 17:08:49 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 氣候變遷是一個公共的、全球的以及跨世代的外部性問題，根本原因為人為排放溫室氣體所致，其中又以二氧化碳的排放影響最為嚴重。2015年7月我國公布施行《溫室氣體減量及管理法》，明定我國「國家長期減量目標為2050年溫室氣體排放量降為2005年的百分之五十以下」，確立我國政府因應氣候變遷的減碳決心。2018年3月經濟部能源局公布《能源轉型白皮書（初稿）》，能源政策的目標有二：一為非核家園，二為再生能源占總發電量占比20%，然而，2018年11月舉行的公投結果與我國政策目標有相異之處，且應使用何種經濟誘因政策工具以達到目標能源配比政府尚未有明確指示。
本文旨在研究深度減碳政策對環境面、能源面、經濟面與社會面的影響。本文研究方法應用E3ME模型（energy-environment-economy global macro-economic model）進行分析。首先，本研究比較兩種經濟誘因政策工具：課徵碳稅（carbon tax）與再生能源發電躉購補貼制度（feed-in tariffs，FIT）的政策效果，結果發現使用何種經濟誘因政策工具與經濟誘因的大小並非影響再生能源裝置容量的主要因素。然而，碳稅的減碳效果相對較大，若欲達到深度減碳的政策目標，課徵碳稅有其必要性。其次，由於課徵碳稅會提高廠商成本與消費者物價，對總體經濟可能有負面影響，且碳稅可能具有累退性，將有可能惡化所得分配，不利社會公平，因此本研究討論在稅收中立原則下，維持每年稅收不變，高低與進程不同的碳稅稅額計畫與八種稅收循環方式對總體經濟與所得分配的影響，稅收循環方式分別為：第一類為（1）無稅收循環（稅收用於減少財政赤字或增加財政盈餘）；第二類為租稅交換：包括（2）降低營業稅（消費稅）率、（3）降低個人綜所稅率、（4）降低雇主負擔之薪資稅、以及（5）同時降低上述三種稅率；第三類為專款專用：包括（6）增加社會安全與社會福利給付、（7）定額移轉（稅收以每人等額的方式發還全民）；第四類為定租稅交換與專款專用並行：（8）降低營業稅（消費稅）率與定額移轉。最後，在不同國家即使實施相同的政策，也會有不同的政策效果，因此，本研究討論台灣、日本與韓國分別課徵相同單位稅額碳稅的政策效果。
從模擬結果來看，在我國實施高稅額的碳稅計劃搭配「定額移轉與減徵營業稅兩者並行」的稅收循環方式似乎較能平衡碳稅的總體經濟衝擊並改善所得分配。比較台灣、日本與韓國實施碳稅的政策效果，我國相較日本與韓國有較大的減碳空間，且受到碳稅的衝擊較大，而碳稅在日本與韓國有相對明顯的累退性，不利所得分配。基本上在三個國家中，稅收循環方式以降低營業稅率對總體經濟改善的效果都較大，對所得分配的改善效果較大的稅收循環方式則為增加社會安全與福利給付、或定額移轉。但比較三個國家實施相同的稅收循環制度，可以發現在台灣碳稅稅收循環方式為降低個人綜所稅率、增加社會安全與福利給付、或定額移轉對總體經濟的改善效果較小；在日本則是降低雇主負擔之薪資稅率的方式的效果較小。若多國同時課徵相同單位稅額的碳稅，且稅收各自用於本國，則減碳效果更大，對總體經濟的改善效果較好。
Climate change is a public, global and intergenerational externality. The primary cause of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities, especially CO2 emissions. Taiwan is also exposed by this externality. Therefore, it is necessary and instant to implement deep decarbonization policy. This paper applied E3ME model to study the impact of deep decarbonization policy on environment, energy structure and economy.
First, we compare two policy instruments with economic incentive: carbon tax and feed-in tariffs. The result shows that the power generation of the renewable energy does not have much difference between these two policy instruments, which indicates that what economic incentive or how much is the economic incentive are not the main factors to induce the development of renewable energy. However, imposing carbon tax would reduce more CO2 emissions than feed-in tariffs. Second, we considered different ways of the revenues from carbon tax could be used: (1) for budget deficit or surplus (2) reducing value-added tax rate; (3) income tax rate; (4) labor tax rate; or (5) all three of them, and (6) increasing benefit payment or (7) lump-sum income payment, and the last is (8) reducing value-added tax rate and lump-sum income payment simultaneously. Last, we simulate the same policy implemented in Japan and Korea to compare the policy effect in East Asia.
The result shows that imposing carbon tax at a higher price and the revenues used for reducing value-added tax rate and lump-sum income payment simultaneously in Taiwan is a better way of revenue recycling. It would have a positive effect on national economy and improve the income distribution. Among Taiwan, Japan and Korea these three countries, Taiwan would experience larger effects if imposing carbon tax. The better way of revenue recycling to have a positive effect on national economy is via reducing value-added tax rate, and increasing benefit payment or lump-sum income payment would improve income distribution in all three countries. However, reducing income tax rate, increasing benefit payment or lump-sum income payment have relatively smaller effect in Taiwan. Reducing labor tax rate has smaller effect in Japan. Also, the carbon tax is more regressive in Japan and Korea than in Taiwan. In conclusion, imposing carbon tax with proper revenue recycling could provide the possibility of achieving the objective of deep decarbonization. |
| Reference: | 中文參考文獻
1. 行政院環境保護署（2017），「國家因應氣候變遷行動綱領（核定本）」
2. 李陳國（2011），「我國環境保護的經濟手段之研究」，臺灣銀行季刊，62(4): 1-36。
3. 林建甫（2010），「總體經濟計量模型的建立與應用」，經濟論文叢刊，38(1): 1-64。
4. 林晉勗與林師模（2018），「我國新能源政策下碳稅對3E及所得分配之影響分析」，行政院原子能委員會委託研究計畫研究報告，中原大學應用經濟模型研究中心。
5. 洪瑋嶸（2018），「再生能源是否需要大量補貼」，核能研究所，能源簡析。
6. 經濟部能源局（2018），「能源轉型白皮書（初稿）」
7. 經濟部能源局（2018），「106年度能源局年報」
8. 蕭代基、陳明真、陳筆、黃耀輝、洪志銘與黃德秀（2009），「綠色稅制之研究」，蕭代基（主持），財政部賦稅署（委託），PG9708-0118，台北：中華經濟研究院。
英文參考文獻
1. Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?. Review of environmental economics and policy, 7(1), 2-22.
2. Andersen, M. S., & Ekins, P. (Eds.). (2009). Carbon-energy taxation: lessons from Europe. Oxford University Press.
3. Arimura, T., Hibiki, A., & Johnstone, N. (2007). An empirical study of environmental R&D: what encourages facilities to be environmentally innovative. Environmental policy and corporate behaviour, 142-173.
4. Bautista, R. M. (1988). Macroeconomic models for East Asian developing countries. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature, 2(2), 1-25.
5. Beck, M., Rivers, N., Wigle, R., & Yonezawa, H. (2015). Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia. Resource and Energy Economics, 41, 40-69.
6. Bor, Y. J., & Huang, Y. (2010). Energy taxation and the double dividend effect in Taiwan`s energy conservation policy—an empirical study using a computable general equilibrium model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2086-2100.
7. Bürer, M. J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2009). Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist`s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech investors. Energy policy, 37(12), 4997-5006.
8. Cambridge Econometrics (2014), E3ME Version 6 Model Manual, Retrieved August 23, 2019, from
https://www.camecon.com/how/e3me-model/e3me-manual/
9. Capros, P., Karadeloglou, P., & Mentzas, G. (1990). An empirical assessment of macroeconometric and CGE approaches in policy modeling. Journal of Policy Modeling, 12(3), 557-585.
10. Chewpreecha, U., & Lee, T. Y. (2015). The distributional effects of low carbon policies in Japan and South Korea. In Low-carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia: Improving energy systems, taxation and policy cooperation (pp. 171-189).
11. Compston, H., & Bailey, I. (2016). Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan. Climate Policy, 16(2), 145-164.
12. European Commission (2008). The support of electricity from renewable energy sources. Commission Staff Working Document (SEC (2008) 57).
13. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Effects of carbon taxes in an economy with prior tax distortions: an intertemporal general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Environmental economics and Management, 29(3), 271-297.
14. Grösche, P., & Schröder, C. (2014). On the redistributive effects of Germany’s feed-in tariff. Empirical Economics, 46(4), 1339-1383.
15. Grubb, M., Neuhoff, K., & Hourcade, J. C. (2014). Planetary economics. New York: Routledge.
16. Hamond, M. J., DeCanio, S. J., Duxbury, P., Sanstad, A. H., & Stinson, C. H. (1997). Tax waste, not work. Challenge, 40(6), 53-62.
17. Hicks, J. R. (1932). The theory of wages, 1st ed. London: Macmillan.
18. IPCC (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Retrieved August 23, 2019, from
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
19. Johnstone, N., Haščič, I., & Popp, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environmental and resource economics, 45(1), 133-155.
20. Klein, L. R., & Goldberger, A. S. (1955). Econometric model of the United States, 1929-1952.
21. Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R., & Stern, N. (2018). Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nature Climate Change, 8(8), 669.
22. Lee, D. R., & Misiolek, W. S. (1986). Substituting pollution taxation for general taxation: Some implications for efficiency in pollutions taxation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13(4), 338-347.
23. Lee, S., Chewpreecha, U., Pollitt, H., & Kojima, S. (2018). An economic assessment of carbon tax reform to meet Japan’s NDC target under different nuclear assumptions using the E3ME model. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 20(2), 411-429.
24. Lee, S., Liu, X., & Matsumoto, K. I. (2015). Energy systems and environmental policy in East Asia. In Low-carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia (pp. 27-54). Routledge.
25. Lee, S. C., Pollitt, H., & Park, S. J. (2015). Introduction to the modeling in this book. In Low-carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia: Improving energy systems, taxation and policy cooperation (pp 29-41). Routledge.
26. Mercure, J. F. (2012). FTT: Power: A global model of the power sector with induced technological change and natural resource depletion. Energy Policy, 48, 799-811.
27. Mercure, J. F., Pollitt, H., Chewpreecha, U., Salas, P., Foley, A. M., Holden, P. B., & Edwards, N. R. (2014). The dynamics of technology diffusion and the impacts of climate policy instruments in the decarbonisation of the global electricity sector. Energy Policy, 73, 686-700.
28. Mercure, J. F., Pollitt, H., Edwards, N. R., Holden, P. B., Chewpreecha, U., Salas, P., ... & Vinuales, J. E. (2018). Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE. Energy strategy reviews, 20, 195-208.
29. Metcalf, G. E. (1999). A distributional analysis of green tax reforms. National tax journal, 655-681.
30. Mori, A., Ekins, P., Speck, S., Lee, S. C., & Ueta, K. (Eds.). (2013). The green fiscal mechanism and reform for low carbon development: East Asia and Europe. Routledge.
31. Nelson, T., Simshauser, P., & Kelley, S. (2011). Australian residential solar feed-in tariffs: industry stimulus or regressive form of taxation?. Economic Analysis and Policy, 41(2), 113-129.
32. Newell, R. G., Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1999). The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 941-975.
33. Oderinwale, T., & van der Weijde, A. H. (2017). Carbon taxation and feed-in tariffs: evaluating the effect of network and market properties on policy effectiveness. Energy Systems, 8(3), 623-642.
34. Ogawa, Y., Mercure, J. F., & Lee, S. (2015). Modeling the power sector in East Asia: economic and environmental impacts of the choices of power sources. In Low-carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia (pp. 89-98). Routledge.
35. Pearce, D. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. The economic journal, 101(407), 938-948.
36. Pechman, J. A., & Okner, B. A. (1974). Who Bears the Tax Burden? Studies of Government Finance Series.
37. Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare 4th. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
38. Pollitt, H., Alexandri, E., Chewpreecha, U., & Klaassen, G. (2015). Macroeconomic analysis of the employment impacts of future EU climate policies. Climate Policy, 15(5), 604-625.
39. Popp, D. (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. American economic review, 92(1), 160-180.
40. Popp, D. (2003). Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 641-660.
41. Porter, M. E. (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific American, 264(4), 168.
42. Poterba, J. M. (1991). Is the gasoline tax regressive?. Tax policy and the economy, 5, 145-164.
43. Poterba, J. M. (1991). Tax policy to combat global warming: on designing a carbon tax (No. w3649). National Bureau of Economic Research.
44. Seung-Joon, P., Ogawa, Y., & Kawakatsu, T. (2015). The double dividend of an environmental tax reform in East Asian economies. In Low-carbon, Sustainable Future in East Asia (pp. 147-165). Routledge.
45. Smith, A., Chewpreecha, U., Mercure, J. F., & Pollitt, H. (2019). EU Climate and Energy Policy Beyond 2020: Is a Single Target for GHG Reduction Sufficient?. In The European Dimension of Germany’s Energy Transition (pp. 27-43). Springer, Cham.
46. Terkla, D. (1984). The efficiency value of effluent tax revenues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 11(2), 107-123.
47. Tullock, G. (1967). Excess benefit. Water Resources Research, 3(2), 643-644.
48. Wei, M., Patadia, S., & Kammen, D. M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?. Energy policy, 38(2), 919-931.
49. Yamazaki, A. (2017). Jobs and climate policy: Evidence from British Columbia`s revenue-neutral carbon tax. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 83, 197-216. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經濟學系
106258010 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106258010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU201901128 |
| Appears in Collections: | [經濟學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 801001.pdf | 2504Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 357 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
