IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ccexxx/v09y2018i01ns2010007818400092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revenue Recycling And Cost Effective Ghg Abatement: An Exploratory Analysis Using A Global Multi-Sector Multi-Region Cge Model

Author

Listed:
  • YUNFA ZHU

    (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 200 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau, Québec, K1A 0H3, Canada)

  • MADANMOHAN GHOSH

    (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 200 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau, Québec, K1A 0H3, Canada)

  • DEMING LUO

    (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 200 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau, Québec, K1A 0H3, Canada)

  • NICK MACALUSO

    (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 200 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau, Québec, K1A 0H3, Canada)

  • JACOB RATTRAY

    (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 200 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, Gatineau, Québec, K1A 0H3, Canada)

Abstract

Carbon pricing generates revenues which can be recycled back into the economy in different ways to help mitigate the economic cost of abatement. These include, lump-sum transfers to households; reducing existing distortionary taxes, such as income taxes on labor and capital; investment in technology funds leading to energy/emissions efficiency improvements; and/or infrastructure developments that help expedite the adoption of low or lower carbon-intensive technologies. In this paper, we undertake illustrative simulations to explore how different revenue recycling options influence the overall economic outcome in terms of broad macroeconomic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or household welfare. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) multi-sector, multi-region Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model (EC-MSMR) is used to simulate various revenue recycling options. These simulations are undertaken for the U.S. economy. The main findings of the paper are: (i) using carbon revenue for a general income tax reduction or investment subsidy is more advantageous than a lump-sum transfer to U.S. consumers in terms of welfare or GDP; and (ii) using carbon revenue for a sector-based subsidy such as renewable energy is more disadvantageous than a lump-sum transfer to consumers. In terms of accumulated welfare effects, our results indicate that the best carbon revenue recycling option is the investment subsidy or capital income tax reduction in the longer horizon; labor tax reductions yield the best outcome in the shorter horizons.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunfa Zhu & Madanmohan Ghosh & Deming Luo & Nick Macaluso & Jacob Rattray, 2018. "Revenue Recycling And Cost Effective Ghg Abatement: An Exploratory Analysis Using A Global Multi-Sector Multi-Region Cge Model," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-25, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ccexxx:v:09:y:2018:i:01:n:s2010007818400092
    DOI: 10.1142/S2010007818400092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007818400092
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S2010007818400092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angel Aguiar & Badri Narayanan & Robert McDougall, 2016. "An Overview of the GTAP 9 Data Base," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 1(1), pages 181-208, June.
    2. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2014. "Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 230-271, February.
    3. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    4. Fullerton, Don & Henderson, Yolanda Kodrzycki, 1989. "The Marginal Excess Burden of Different Capital Tax Instruments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(3), pages 435-442, August.
    5. Ghosh, Madanmohan & Luo, Deming & Siddiqui, Muhammad Shahid & Zhu, Yunfa, 2012. "Border tax adjustments in the climate policy context: CO2 versus broad-based GHG emission targeting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 154-167.
    6. Browning, Edgar K, 1976. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(2), pages 283-298, April.
    7. J. Reilly & R. Prinn & J. Harnisch & J. Fitzmaurice & H. Jacoby & D. Kicklighter & J. Melillo & P. Stone & A. Sokolov & C. Wang, 1999. "Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol," Nature, Nature, vol. 401(6753), pages 549-555, October.
    8. Rutherford, Thomas F, 1999. "Applied General Equilibrium Modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modeling Framework and Syntax," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-46, October.
    9. Martin L. Weitzman, 2014. "Can Negotiating a Uniform Carbon Price Help to Internalize the Global Warming Externality?," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 29-49.
    10. Azusa OKAGAWA & Kanemi BAN, 2008. "Estimation of substitution elasticities for CGE models," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 08-16, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    11. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    12. Jotham Peters & Chris Bataille & Nic Rivers & Mark Jaccard, 2010. "Taxing Emissions, Not Income: How to Moderate the Regional Impact of Federal Environment Policy," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 314, November.
    13. Lawrence H. Goulder & Roberton C. Williams, 2012. "The Choice Of Discount Rate For Climate Change Policy Evaluation," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-18.
    14. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    15. Fullerton, Don, 1991. "Reconciling Recent Estimates of the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 302-308, March.
    16. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 2001. "An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6829), pages 675-677, April.
    17. Gaskins, Darius W, Jr & Weyant, John P, 1993. "Model Comparisons of the Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 318-323, May.
    18. Martin Feldstein, 1999. "Tax Avoidance And The Deadweight Loss Of The Income Tax," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 674-680, November.
    19. Emmanuel Saez & Joel Slemrod & Seth H. Giertz, 2012. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 3-50, March.
    20. Snow, Arthur & Warren, Ronald Jr., 1996. "The marginal welfare cost of public funds: Theory and estimates," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 289-305, August.
    21. Parry, Ian W.H. & Bento, Antonio M., 1999. "Tax Deductible Spending, Environmental Policy, and the "Double Dividend" Hypothesis," Discussion Papers 10737, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lingli Qi & Lei Zhao & Yongqiang Zhang & Shiqi Jiang & Xinyue Lin & Yishuai Ren, 2024. "Computable general equilibrium analysis of neutral carbon trading scheme and revenue recycling impacts on income distribution in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Ruth Delzeit & Robert Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel &, 2020. "Linking Global CGE Models with Sectoral Models to Generate Baseline Scenarios: Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 162-195, June.
    3. Doda, Baran & Fankhauser, Sam, 2020. "Climate policy and power producers: The distribution of pain and gain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. James R. Mcfarland & Allen A. Fawcett & Adele C. Morris & John M. Reilly & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2018. "Overview Of The Emf 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-37, February.
    5. Liu, Na & Yao, Xilong & Wan, Fang & Han, Yunfei, 2023. "Are tax revenue recycling schemes based on industry-differentiated carbon tax conducive to realizing the “double dividend”?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Bistline, John E.T. & Brown, Maxwell & Siddiqui, Sauleh A. & Vaillancourt, Kathleen, 2020. "Electric sector impacts of renewable policy coordination: A multi-model study of the North American energy system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Cai, Yongxia & Woollacott, Jared & Beach, Robert H. & Rafelski, Lauren E. & Ramig, Christopher & Shelby, Michael, 2023. "Insights from adding transportation sector detail into an economy-wide model: The case of the ADAGE CGE model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    8. Bahn, Olivier & Vaillancourt, Kathleen, 2020. "Implications of EMF 34 scenarios on renewable deployment and carbon abatement in Canada: Insights from a regionalized energy model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    9. Ruth Delzeit & Roberto Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel , 2020. "Linking global CGE models with sectoral models to generate baseline scenarios: Approaches, opportunities and pitfalls," Post-Print hal-03128285, HAL.
    10. Gavard, Claire & Voigt, Sebastian & Genty, Aurélien, 2022. "Using emissions trading schemes to reduce heterogeneous distortionary taxes: The case of recycling carbon auction revenues to support renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    11. Brown, Maxwell & Siddiqui, Sauleh & Avraam, Charalampos & Bistline, John & Decarolis, Joseph & Eshraghi, Hadi & Giarola, Sara & Hansen, Matthew & Johnston, Peter & Khanal, Saroj & Molar-Cruz, Anahi, 2021. "North American energy system responses to natural gas price shocks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    12. Ekaterina Rhodes & Kira Craig & Aaron Hoyle & Madeleine McPherson, 2021. "How Do Energy-Economy Models Compare? A Survey of Model Developers and Users in Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-39, May.
    13. Allen A. Fawcett & James R. Mcfarland & Adele C. Morris & John P. Weyant, 2018. "Introduction To The Emf 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-7, February.
    14. Doda, Baran & Fankhauser, Sam, 2020. "Climate policy and power producers: The distribution of pain and gain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Xavier Vence & Sugey de Jesus López Pérez, 2021. "Taxation for a Circular Economy: New Instruments, Reforms, and Architectural Changes in the Fiscal System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parry, Ian W.H., 1999. "Tax Deductions, Consumption Distortions, and the Marginal Excess Burden of Taxation," Discussion Papers 10801, Resources for the Future.
    2. James E. Anderson & Will Martin, 2011. "Costs of Taxation and Benefits of Public Goods with Multiple Taxes and Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(2), pages 289-309, April.
    3. Sanz Labrador, Ismael & Sanz-Sanz, José Félix, 2013. "Política fiscal y crecimiento económico: consideraciones microeconómicas y relaciones macroeconómicas," Macroeconomía del Desarrollo 5367, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    4. Uribe-Terán, Carlos, 2021. "Higher taxes at the top? The role of tax avoidance," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Yuri Andrienko & Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2016. "Optimal taxation and top incomes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(6), pages 981-1003, December.
    6. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Optimal Labor Income Taxation," NBER Working Papers 18521, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Karel Mertens & José Luis Montiel Olea, 2018. "Marginal Tax Rates and Income: New Time Series Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1803-1884.
    8. Enrico Rubolino & Daniel Waldenström, 2020. "Tax progressivity and top incomes evidence from tax reforms," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 18(3), pages 261-289, September.
    9. Carina Neisser, 2021. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income: A Meta-Regression Analysis [The top 1% in international and historical perspective]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(640), pages 3365-3391.
    10. Joshua Rauh & Ryan J. Shyu, 2019. "Behavioral Responses to State Income Taxation of High Earners: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 26349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Jarkko Harju & Tuomas Matikka, 2016. "The elasticity of taxable income and income-shifting: what is “real” and what is not?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(4), pages 640-669, August.
    12. Enrico Rubolino & Daniel Waldenström, 2019. "Trends and gradients in top tax elasticities: cross-country evidence, 1900–2014," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(3), pages 457-485, June.
    13. Tuomas Matikka, 2018. "Elasticity of Taxable Income: Evidence from Changes in Municipal Income Tax Rates in Finland," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 943-973, July.
    14. Oguzhan Akgun & David Bartolini & Boris Cournède, 2017. "The capacity of governments to raise taxes," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1407, OECD Publishing.
    15. Jäntti, Markus & Pirttilä, Jukka & Selin, Håkan, 2015. "Estimating labour supply elasticities based on cross-country micro data: A bridge between micro and macro estimates?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 87-99.
    16. Nicholas Lawson, 2014. "Taxing the Job Creators: Effcient Progressive Taxation with Wage Bargaining," Working Papers halshs-01059604, HAL.
    17. Ligia Alba Melo-Becerra & Héctor Zárate-Solano & Andrés Camilo Gómez-Molina, 2018. "Elasticidad del ingreso corporativo gravable en Colombia," Borradores de Economia 1046, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    18. Miguel Almunia & David Lopez-Rodriguez, 2019. "The elasticity of taxable income in Spain: 1999–2014," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 281-320, November.
    19. Alejandro Esteller & Amedeo Piolatto & Matthew D. Rablen, 2016. "Taxing high-income earners: tax avoidance and mobility," IFS Working Papers W16/07, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Philipp Doerrenberg & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2017. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income in the Presence of Deduction Possibilities," NBER Chapters, in: Personal Income Taxation and Household Behavior (TAPES), National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Carbon pricing; revenue recycling;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:ccexxx:v:09:y:2018:i:01:n:s2010007818400092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/cce/cce.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.