We are all in the same boat: The welfare and carbon abatement effects of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism

Wang, Junbo and Ma, Zhenyu and Fan, Xiayang (2023): We are all in the same boat: The welfare and carbon abatement effects of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism.

Abstract

Amid the escalating global climate crisis, the European Union (EU) has assumed a prominent role by introducing the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). This initiative aims to bolster climate action and mitigate carbon leakage. Nevertheless, considerable debate surrounds the practical efficacy of this measure and its conformity with World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations. This paper's objective is to quantitatively evaluate the welfare and carbon abatement effects of CBAM on the EU and other prominent economies. We develop a comprehensive multi-country, multi-sector general equilibrium model that incorporates EU carbon tariffs, global production networks, and carbon emissions to achieve this goal. The estimation of key parameters is conducted through a structural methodology that directly evaluates the impacts on welfare and carbon emissions resulting from unilateral or multilateral low-carbon policies. The analysis revealed that CBAM would enhance the welfare of the EU, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States. Conversely, all other economies would experience a reduction in welfare, with Russia suffering the most significant loss and China the least. Furthermore, despite CBAM's effective global carbon emission reduction, its impact on the EU's domestic carbon reduction is limited. Counterfactual analyses indicate that global carbon emissions decrease in scenarios involving a globally standardized carbon pricing mechanism, China's elevation of carbon pricing alongside a carbon tariff, and the European Union's extension of taxation to all sectors. However, these scenarios result in substantial disparities in welfare levels among countries, with the most substantial reduction in global carbon emissions occurring exclusively with a globally harmonized carbon price, accompanied by the most minor overall welfare loss. In conclusion, this paper advocates for enhanced international collaboration and dialogue among nations to foster harmonizing carbon pricing policies and adopt a universally standardized carbon pricing mechanism.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: EU CBAM; Carbon leakage; Carbon abatement; Welfare analysis; Quantitative trade model
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F17 - Trade Forecasting and Simulation; F - International Economics > F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization > F64 - Environment; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q56 - Environment and Development ; Environment and Trade ; Sustainability ; Environmental Accounts and Accounting ; Environmental Equity ; Population Growth; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

Aichele, R., Felbermayr, G., 2015. Kyoto and carbon leakage: An empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97, 104-115.

Antimiani, A., Costantini, V., Kuik, O., Paglialunga, E., 2016. Mitigation of adverse effects on competitiveness and leakage of unilateral EU climate policy: An assessment of policy instruments. Ecol. Econ. 128, 246-259.

Beaufils, T., Ward, H., Jakob, M., Wenz, L., 2023. Assessing different European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism implementations and their impact on trade partners. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 131.

Bellora, C., Fontagné, L., 2023. EU in search of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Energy Econ. 123, 106673.

Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T., Rosendahl, K.E., 2017a. Targeted carbon tariffs: Export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51-73.

Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K.E., Storrøsten, H.B., 2017b. Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. J. Public Econ. 149, 35-46.

Böhringer, C., Schneider, J., Asane-Otoo, E., 2021. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. Environmental and Resource Economics 78, 669-708.

Branger, F., Quirion, P., 2014. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99, 29-39.

Caliendo, L., Parro, F., 2015. Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA. The Review of Economic Studies 82, 1-44.

Clora, F., Yu, W., Corong, E., 2023. Alternative carbon border adjustment mechanisms in the European Union and international responses: Aggregate and within-coalition results. Energy Policy 174, 113454.

Copeland, B.R., Taylor, M.S., 2004. Trade, growth, and the environment. J. Econ. Lit. 42, 7-71.

Copeland, B.R., Taylor, M.S., 2017. North-South trade and the environment. International Trade and the Environment, 205-238.

Costinot, A., Rodríguez-Clare, A., 2014. Trade theory with numbers: Quantifying the consequences of globalization. Handbook of international economics, 197-261.

Dekle, R., Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 2008. Global rebalancing with gravity: Measuring the burden of adjustment. IMF Staff Papers 55, 511-540.

Dellink, R., Jamet, S., Chateau, J., Duval, R., 2014. Towards global carbon pricing: Direct and indirect linking of carbon markets. OECD Journal: Economic Studies 2013, 209-234.

Duan, Y., Ji, T., Lu, Y., Wang, S., 2021. Environmental regulations and international trade: A quantitative economic analysis of world pollution emissions. J. Public Econ. 203, 104521.

Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 2002. Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70, 1741-1779.

Egger, P.H., Nigai, S., 2015. Structural gravity with dummies only: Constrained ANOVA-type estimation of gravity models. J. Int. Econ. 97, 86-99.

Espa, I., 2022. Reconciling the climate/industrial interplay of CBAMs: what role for the WTO? Am. J. Int. Law 116, 208-212.

Fouré, J., Guimbard, H., Monjon, S., 2016. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: What would be the cost for the European Union? Energy Econ. 54, 349-362.

Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER working paper, 3914.

Hammoudeh, S., Lahiani, A., Nguyen, D.K., Sousa, R.M., 2015. An empirical analysis of energy cost pass-through to CO2 emission prices. Energy Econ. 49, 149-156.

Jakob, M., 2021. Why carbon leakage matters and what can be done against it. One Earth 4, 609-614.

Larch, M., Wanner, J., 2017. Carbon tariffs: An analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects. J. Int. Econ. 109, 195-213.

Ledley, T.S., Sundquist, E.T., Schwartz, S.E., Hall, D.K., Fellows, J.D., Killeen, T.L., 1999. Climate change and greenhouse gases. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 80, 453-458.

Li, W., Liu, X., Lu, C., 2023. Analysis of China's steel response ways to EU CBAM policy based on embodied carbon intensity prediction. Energy 128812.

Lin, J., Du, M., Chen, L., Feng, K., Liu, Y., V. Martin, R., Wang, J., Ni, R., Zhao, Y., Kong, H., 2019. Carbon and health implications of trade restrictions. Nat. Commun. 10, 4947.

Magacho, G., Espagne, E., Godin, A., 2023. Impacts of the CBAM on EU trade partners: consequences for developing countries. Clim. Policy 1-17.

Mattoo, A., Subramanian, A., van der Mensbrugghe, D., He, J., 2013. Trade effects of alternative carbon border-tax schemes. Rev. World Econ. 149, 587-609.

Meinshausen, M., Smith, S.J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J.S., Kainuma, M.L., Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S.A., Raper, S.C., Riahi, K., 2011. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109, 213-241.

Milani, S., 2017. The impact of environmental policy stringency on industrial R&D conditional on pollution intensity and relocation costs. Environmental and resource economics 68, 595-620.

Mora, C., Spirandelli, D., Franklin, E.C., Lynham, J., Kantar, M.B., Miles, W., Smith, C.Z., Freel, K., Moy, J., Louis, L.V., 2018. Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 1062-1071.

Newman, N.S., 2022. The European Union’s CBAM: Is It an Effective Economic Climate Policy? Pepperdine Policy Review 14, 3.

Overland, I., Sabyrbekov, R., 2022. Know your opponent: Which countries might fight the European carbon border adjustment mechanism? Energy Policy 169, 113175.

Ramstein, C., Dominioni, G., Ettehad, S., Lam, L., Quant, M., Zhang, J., Mark, L., Nierop, S., Berg, T., Leuschner, P., 2019. State and trends of carbon pricing.

Ren, Y., Liu, G., Shi, L., 2023. The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will exacerbate the economic-carbon inequality in the plastic trade. J. Environ. Manage. 332, 117302.

Ritz, R.A., 2022. Global carbon price asymmetry. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 114, 102687.

Shapiro, J.S., Walker, R., 2018. Why is pollution from US manufacturing declining? The roles of environmental regulation, productivity, and trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 108, 3814-3854.

Wang, L., Gu, M., Li, H., 2012. Influence path and effect of climate change on geopolitical pattern. J. Geogr. Sci. 22, 1117-1130.

Ward, H., Steckel, J.C., Jakob, M., 2019. How global climate policy could affect competitiveness. Energy Econ. 84, 104549.

Wen, F., Zhao, L., He, S., Yang, G., 2020. Asymmetric relationship between carbon emission trading market and stock market: evidences from China. Energy Econ. 91, 104850.

Zheng, Y., Zhou, M., Wen, F., 2021. Asymmetric effects of oil shocks on carbon allowance price: Evidence from China. Energy Econ. 97, 105183.

Zhong, J., Pei, J., 2022. Beggar thy neighbor? On the competitiveness and welfare impacts of the EU's proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Policy 162, 112802.