REVENUE RECYCLING AND COST EFFECTIVE GHG ABATEMENT: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS USING A GLOBAL MULTI-SECTOR MULTI-REGION CGE MODEL

Yunfa Zhu, Madanmohan Ghosh (), Deming Luo, Nick Macaluso and Jacob Rattray
Additional contact information
Yunfa Zhu: 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

Climate Change Economics (CCE), 2018, vol. 09, issue 01, 1-25

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.

Keywords: Carbon pricing; revenue recycling (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007818400092
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:ccexxx:v:09:y:2018:i:01:n:s2010007818400092

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S2010007818400092

Access Statistics for this article

Climate Change Economics (CCE) is currently edited by Robert Mendelsohn

More articles in Climate Change Economics (CCE) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().