Nicht referiert
Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (4)
- Article (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (1)
- E-DSGE (1)
- carbon emissions (1)
- carbon pricing (1)
- climate policy (1)
- commuting (1)
- energy expenditure (1)
- energy prices (1)
- home office (1)
- removal subsidies (1)
Institute
Sollte Klimapolitik auf Energiepreisanstiege reagieren und kurzfristig CO2-Preise anpassen, um Haushalte zu entlasten? Alkis Blanz, Ulrich Eydam, Maik Heinemann und Matthias Kalkuhl, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) und Universität Potsdam, zeigen, dass die Verwendung der Einnahmen aus der CO2-Bepreisung von entscheidender Bedeutung ist. Werden diese weitestgehend durch Steuersenkungen oder Transfers an Haushalte rückverteilt, sollten CO2-Preise nicht an kurzfristige Energiepreisschwankungen angepasst werden. Haushalte profitieren stärker von einer direkten Stabilisierung ihres Einkommens als von der Stabilisierung der Energiepreise. Werden Einnahmen aus der CO2-Bepreisung nicht rückerstattet, sind dagegen antizyklische CO2-Preise wohlfahrtserhöhend.
Optimal carbon pricing with fluctuating energy prices — emission targeting vs. price targeting
(2022)
Prices of primary energy commodities display marked fluctuations over time. Market-based climate policy instruments (e.g., emissions pricing) create incentives to reduce energy consumption by increasing the user cost of fossil energy. This raises the question of whether climate policy should respond to fluctuations in fossil energy prices? We study this question within an environmental dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (E-DSGE) model calibrated on the German economy. Our results indicate that the welfare implications of dynamic emissions pricing crucially depend on how the revenues are used. When revenues are fully absorbed, a reduction in emissions prices stabilizes the economy in response to energy price shocks. However, when revenues are at least partially recycled, a stable emissions price improves overall welfare. This result is robust to different modeling assumptions.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) moves atmospheric carbon to geological or land-based sinks. In a first-best setting, the optimal use of CDR is achieved by a removal subsidy that equals the optimal carbon tax and marginal damages. We derive second-best subsidies for CDR when no global carbon price exists but a national government implements a unilateral climate policy. We find that the optimal carbon tax differs from an optimal CDR subsidy because of carbon leakage, terms-of-trade and fossil resource rent dynamics. First, the optimal removal subsidy tends to be larger than the carbon tax because of lower supply-side leakage on fossil resource markets. Second, terms-of-trade effects exacerbate this wedge for net resource exporters, implying even larger removal subsidies. Third, the optimal removal subsidy may fall below the carbon tax for resource-poor countries when marginal environmental damages are small.
The COVID-19 pandemic created the largest experiment in working from home. We study how persistent telework may change energy and transport consumption and costs in Germany to assess the distributional and environmental implications when working from home will stick. Based on data from the German Microcensus and available classifications of working-from-home feasibility for different occupations, we calculate the change in energy consumption and travel to work when 15% of employees work full time from home. Our findings suggest that telework translates into an annual increase in heating energy expenditure of 110 euros per worker and a decrease in transport expenditure of 840 euros per worker. All income groups would gain from telework but high-income workers gain twice as much as low-income workers. The value of time saving is between 1.3 and 6 times greater than the savings from reduced travel costs and almost 9 times higher for high-income workers than low-income workers. The direct effects on CO₂ emissions due to reduced car commuting amount to 4.5 millions tons of CO₂, representing around 3 percent of carbon emissions in the transport sector.