IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/euv/dpaper/010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Grenzausgleichsinstrumente bei unilateralen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen. Eine ökonomische und WTO-rechtliche Analyse

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Becker

    () (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder))

  • Magdalena Brzeskot

    () (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder))

  • Wolfgang Peters

    () (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder))

  • Ulrike Will

    () (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder))

Abstract

ENGLISH SUMMARY

This paper examines to what extent the disadvantages of unilateral climate policy can be reduced by border adjustments. The disadvantages are primarily a competitive disadvantage for the domestic industry and the potential (over-) compensation of CO2 savings from increased emissions in other countries (carbon leakage). We investigate a CO2 tax as the climate policy tool that can be supported by a Border Tax Adjustment (BTA).

In the economic part of the analysis a partial equilibrium trade model is used to demonstrate the impact on the competitive position and on global CO2 emissions if a CO2 tax and a BTA are analyzed. It is shown that is makes a difference whether these measures are introduced separately or as a package.

In the legal part of the analysis, the WTO compatibility of a climate-policy motivated BTA is then examined. One possibility is to design a BTA that is consistent with the national treatment rule. Another one is to claim an exception based on Article XX GATT. The idea of a package solution of a CO2 tax and a BTA is reconsidered in our legal analysis. It may help to ease the justification of the proposed interventions into the world trading system.

Finally, based on the economic and legal considerations, different design options to implement a BTA are presented. One proposal is a Carbon Added Tax in combination with a BTA similar to that for the VAT. Alternatively, the calculation of the BTA could be based on the carbon footprint, which would be more ambitious from a climate policy perspective. The advantages and disadvantages of both strategies are discussed.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Diese Arbeit untersucht, inwieweit die Nachteile unilateraler Klimaschutzpolitik durch Grenzausgleichsinstrumente verringert werden können. Die Nachteile bestehen vor allem in einem Wettbewerbsnachteil für die eigene Industrie und der möglichen (Über-)kompensation von CO2- Einsparungen durch erhöhte Emissionen im Ausland (Carbon Leakage). Als klimaschutzpolitisches Instrument untersuchen wir eine CO2-Steuer, die durch einen Grenzsteuerausgleich (Border Tax Adjustment, BTA) flankiert werden kann.

Im ökonomischen Teil der Analyse wird mit Hilfe eines partialanalytischen Handelsmodells gezeigt, wie sich die Wettbewerbsposition und die globalen CO2-Emissionen verändern, wenn eine CO2-Steuer und ein BTA analysiert werden. Hierbei ergibt sich ein wichtiger Unterschied, je nachdem, ob diese Maßnahmen getrennt oder als Paket eingeführt werden.

Im juristischen Teil der Analyse wird dann die Kompatibilität mit dem Recht der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) eines klimapolitisch motivierten BTA geprüft. Eine Möglichkeit ist, ein BTA so auszugestalten, dass das WTO-rechtliche Gebot der Inländergleichbehandung gewahrt ist. Eine weitere ist es, die Ausnahmeklausel des Art. XX GATT in Anspruch zu nehmen. Die Idee einer Paketlösung aus CO2-Steuer und BTA wird in der WTO-rechtlichen Prüfung aufgenommen und kann die Rechtfertigung der Eingriffe in das Handelssystem vereinfachen.

Schließlich ergeben sich aus den ökonomischen und WTO-rechtlichen Überlegungen verschiedene Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten für ein BTA. Vorgeschlagen wird zum einen eine Carbon Added Tax in Kombination mit einem BTA ähnlich demjenigen zur Mehrwertsteuer. Alternativ könnte auch die klimapolitisch ambitioniertere Kalkulation des BTA auf Basis des Carbon Footprint verfolgt werden. Für beide Strategien werden die Vor- und Nachteile diskutiert.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Becker & Magdalena Brzeskot & Wolfgang Peters & Ulrike Will, 2013. "Grenzausgleichsinstrumente bei unilateralen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen. Eine ökonomische und WTO-rechtliche Analyse," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 010, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
  • Handle: RePEc:euv:dpaper:010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.europa-uni.de/de/forschung/institut/recap15/downloads/recap15_DP010.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaditya Mattoo & Arvind Subramanian & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe & Jianwu He, 2009. "Reconciling Climate Change and Trade Policy," Working Papers 189, Center for Global Development.
    2. Aichele, Rahel & Felbermayr, Gabriel, 2012. "Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 336-354.
    3. Steve Charnovitz, 2007. "The WTO's Environmental Progress," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 685-706, September.
    4. Grossman, Gene M., 1980. "Border tax adjustments: Do they distort trade?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 117-128, February.
    5. Ian Sheldon, 2011. "Is There Anything New about Border Tax Adjustments and Climate Policy?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 553-557.
    6. Roland Ismer & Karsten Neuhoff, 2007. "Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 137-164, October.
    7. Henrik Horn, 2006. "National Treatment in the GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 394-404, March.
    8. Benn McGrady, 2009. "Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 153-173, March.
    9. Ben Lockwood & John Whalley, 2010. "Carbon‐motivated Border Tax Adjustments: Old Wine in Green Bottles?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 810-819, June.
    10. Paul-Erik Veel, 2009. "Carbon Tariffs and the WTO: An Evaluation of Feasible Policies," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 749-800, September.
    11. Daniel Gros, 2009. "Global Welfare Implications of Carbon Border Taxes," CESifo Working Paper Series 2790, CESifo.
    12. Michael Ming Du, 2011. "The Rise of National Regulatory Autonomy in the GATT/WTO Regime," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 639-675, September.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10971 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Anger, Niels & Alexeeva-Talebi, Victoria & Löschel, Andreas, 2008. "Alleviating Adverse Implications of EU Climate Policy on Competitiveness: The Case for Border Tax Adjustments or the Clean Development Mechanism?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Jean-Marc Burniaux & Jean Chateau & Romain Duval, 2013. "Is there a case for carbon-based border tax adjustment? An applied general equilibrium analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(16), pages 2231-2240, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:euv:dpaper:9999 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alessandro Antimiani & Valeria Costantini & Chiara Martini & Luca Salvatici, 2011. "Cooperative and non-cooperative solutions to carbon leakage," Departmental Working Papers of Economics - University 'Roma Tre' 0136, Department of Economics - University Roma Tre.
    3. Antimiani, Alessandro & Costantini, Valeria & Martini, Chiara & Salvatici, Luca & Tommasino, Maria Cristina, 2013. "Assessing alternative solutions to carbon leakage," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 299-311.
    4. Carol McAusland & Nouri Najjar, 2015. "Carbon Footprint Taxes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(1), pages 37-70, May.
    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. Sakai, Marco & Barrett, John, 2016. "Border carbon adjustments: Addressing emissions embodied in trade," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 102-110.
    7. Christoph Böhringer & Jared C. Carbone & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2018. "Embodied Carbon Tariffs," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(1), pages 183-210, January.
    8. Böhringer, Christoph & Bye, Brita & Fæhn, Taran & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2012. "Alternative designs for tariffs on embodied carbon: A global cost-effectiveness analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 143-153.
    9. Melanie Hecht & Wolfgang Peters, 2019. "Border Adjustments Supplementing Nationally Determined Carbon Pricing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 93-109, May.
    10. Springmann, Marco, 2012. "A look inwards: Carbon tariffs versus internal improvements in emissions-trading systems," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 228-239.
    11. Christoph Böhringer & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2017. "Paris after Trump: An Inconvenient Insight," CESifo Working Paper Series 6531, CESifo.
    12. Bao, Qin & Tang, Ling & Zhang, ZhongXiang & Wang, Shouyang, 2013. "Impacts of border carbon adjustments on China's sectoral emissions: Simulations with a dynamic computable general equilibrium model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 77-94.
    13. Niven Winchester, 2018. "Can tariffs be used to enforce Paris climate commitments?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 2650-2668, October.
    14. Wang, Mingzheng & Liu, Junling & Chan, Hau-Ling & Choi, Tsan-Ming & Yue, Xiaohang, 2016. "Effects of carbon tariffs trading policy on duopoly market entry decisions and price competition: Insights from textile firms of developing countries," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(PB), pages 470-484.
    15. Dissou, Yazid & Eyland, Terry, 2011. "Carbon control policies, competitiveness, and border tax adjustments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 556-564, May.
    16. Hübler, Michael, 2012. "Carbon tariffs on Chinese exports: Emissions reduction, threat, or farce?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 315-327.
    17. Jared C. Carbone & Nicholas Rivers, 2014. "Climate policy and competitiveness: Policy guidance and quantitative evidence," Working Papers 2014-05, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.
    18. Aaditya Mattoo & Arvind Subramanian & Dominique Mensbrugghe & Jianwu He, 2013. "Trade effects of alternative carbon border-tax schemes," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 587-609, September.
    19. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    20. Henrik Horn & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2014. "Multilateral environmental agreements in the WTO: Silence speaks volumes," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 10(1), pages 147-166, March.
    21. Böhringer, Christoph & Fischer, Carolyn & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2014. "Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: Size matters," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 318-339.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Leakage; Border Tax Adjustment; Carbon Added Tax; Carbon Footprint; World Trade Organization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F18 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Environment
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:euv:dpaper:010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Daniel Becker). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fwffode.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.