Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: What would be the cost for the European Union?

被引:39
|
作者
Foure, Jean [1 ]
Guimbard, Houssein [1 ]
Monjon, Stephanie [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] CEPII, 113 Rue Grenelle, F-75007 Paris, France
[2] Univ Paris 09, PSL, LEDa, CGEMP, Pl Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75775 Paris 16, France
关键词
Emission trading scheme; Border carbon adjustment; Trade retaliation; CLIMATE-CHANGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.eneco.2015.11.021
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Unilateral climate policy, such as carbon pricing, represents an additional cost to the economy, especially to energy intensive industrial sectors, as well as those exposed to international competition. A border carbon adjustment (BCA) is often presented as an attractive policy option for countries that wish to go ahead without waiting for a global climate agreement We used the computable general equilibrium model MIRAGE to simulate the impact of the introduction of a BCA on imports of energy-intensive products in EU and EFTA countries and to evaluate the exports their main trade partners would lose. Given that a BCA is a trade measure, it might cause disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO). If the BCA is considered illegal, the losses suffered by some partners may justify trade retaliations. At that point, it would be likely that prohibitive retaliatory tariffs target sensitive products in the EU, which are often related to the European agricultural sector. These trade measures would limit the drop in production in the energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) sectors, but at the expense of the other sectors. Nevertheless, neither the BCA nor retaliation would have sizeable impacts on real income or GDP in the EU or on the retaliators, while leading to a small decrease in global emissions. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:349 / 362
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Carbon-related border tax adjustment: mitigating climate change or restricting international trade?
    Kaufmann, Christine
    Weber, Rolf H.
    WORLD TRADE REVIEW, 2011, 10 (04) : 497 - 525
  • [42] Discussion on the impact of EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) for China- EU trade
    Yan, Zhou
    Yuan, Zhao
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2023, 5 (11):
  • [43] How much would it cost to eliminate the at-risk-of-poverty rate? Evidence from the European Union
    Aksman, Ewa
    ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA, 2021, 34 (01): : 1913 - 1930
  • [44] FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF SERVICE TRADE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
    Chen, Ji
    Fang, Qiang
    Liu, Si
    Balezentis, Tomas
    Zhang, Chonghui
    E & M EKONOMIE A MANAGEMENT, 2020, 23 (01): : 19 - 33
  • [45] Reforms of Korea's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Its Bilateral Free Trade Agreements with the European Union and the United States
    Cheong, Inkyo
    Cho, Jungran
    ASIAN ECONOMIC PAPERS, 2011, 10 (01) : 32 - 55
  • [46] The Cost of Carbon Leakage: Britain's Carbon Price Support and Cross-border Electricity Trade
    Guo, Bowei
    Newbery, David
    ENERGY JOURNAL, 2023, 44 (01): : 9 - 32
  • [47] Know your opponent: Which countries might fight the European carbon border adjustment mechanism?
    Overland, Indra
    Sabyrbekov, Rahat
    ENERGY POLICY, 2022, 169
  • [48] The impact of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on the global iron and steel trade and emission reduction
    Jing Shuai
    Wenjia Wang
    Huan Liu
    Can Huang
    Tian Yi
    Yujia Zhao
    Chuanmin Shuai
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024, 31 : 21524 - 21544
  • [49] The impact of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on the global iron and steel trade and emission reduction
    Shuai, Jing
    Wang, Wenjia
    Liu, Huan
    Huang, Can
    Yi, Tian
    Zhao, Yujia
    Shuai, Chuanmin
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2024, 31 (14) : 21524 - 21544
  • [50] The impact of intra-industry trade on carbon dioxide emissions: The case of the European Union
    Leitao, Nuno Carlos
    Balogh, Jeremias Mate
    AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS-ZEMEDELSKA EKONOMIKA, 2020, 66 (05): : 203 - 214