中国全国二氧化碳排放交易体系的一般均衡评估

Lawrence H. Goulder, Xianling Long, Chenfei Qu, Da Zhang About the Authors Lawrence H. Goulderis the Shuzo Nishihara Professor in Environmental and ResourceEconomics at Stanford University and Director of the Stanford Center forEnvironmental and Energy Policy Analysis. He is also the Kennedy-Grossman Fellow inHuman Biology at Stanford; a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Institute for Economic PolicyResearch; a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; and aUniversity Fellow of Resources for the Future. Xianling Longobtained her PhD from Stanford University in 2020. She is now anassistant professor at the National School of Development, Peking University. Chenfei Quis affiliated with the Institute of Energy, Environment, and Economy atTsinghua University. Da Zhangis an associate professor at the Institute of Energy, Environment andEconomy at Tsinghua University. He is a research associate for the Joint Program onthe Science and Policy of Global Change at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,and an associate editor for theJournal of Global Economic Analysis. His main researchinterests include energy and environmental economics, energy system modeling,applied general equilibrium modeling, and organizational economics. Acknowledgments We are grateful for helpful comments from Carolyn Fischer, Guojun He, Christopher R.Knittel, Gilbert E. Metcalf, Alistair Ritchie, Thomas Rutherford, Roberton Williams,Xiliang Zhang, and participants in the NBER Environmental and Energy EconomicsProgram Meeting, World Bank Climate Change and Development Research Seminar,Mannheim Conference on Energy and Environment, and AERE 2023 SummerConference. We thank Shuxiao Wang and Yisheng Sun for contributing data andoutputs from their air-quality model and Shifrah Aron-Dine, Bing Liu and Eric Weinerfor excellent research assistance. We also gratefully acknowledge financial supportfrom the Energy Foundation China, Asia Society Policy Institute, National NaturalScience Foundation of China, Ministry of Education of China, and EnvironmentalDefense Fund. About RFF Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution inWashington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resourcedecisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF iscommitted to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policysolutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy. Working papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes ofinformation and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review.The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ fromthose of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. Sharing Our Work Our work is available for sharing and adaptation under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. You can copy andredistribute our material in any medium or format; you must give appropriate credit,provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made, and you may notapply additional restrictions. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in anyway that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use thematerial for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,you may not distribute the modified material. For more information, visithttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Abstract China’s recently launched CO2emissions trading system, already the world’s largest,aims to contribute importantly to global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Thesystem, a tradable performance standard (TPS), differs importantly from cap andtrade (C&T), the principal approach used in other countries. We offer a dynamicgeneral equilibrium assessment of this new venture, employing a model that uniquelyconsiders institutional and fiscal features of China’s economy that influence economy-wide policy costs and distributional impacts. Key findings include the following. The TPS’s environmental benefits exceed its costsby a factor of five when only the climate benefits are considered and by a significantlyhigher factor when health benefits from improved air quality are included. Itsinteractions with China’s fiscal system substantially affect its costs relative to those ofC&T. Employing a single benchmark for the electricity sector would lower costs byover a third relative to the existing four-benchmark system but increase the standarddeviation of percentage income losses across provinces by more than 60 percent.Introducing an auction as a complementary source of allowance supply can lowereconomywide costs by at least 30 percent. Contents 1. Introduction12. The TPS62.1. Basic Features62.2. Producer Behavior and Efficiency Implications73. The Numerical Model103.1. Main Features103.2. Production113.2.1. Primary Factors113.2.2. Sectors and Subsectors123.2.3. State-