← 論文一覧に戻る

低炭素経済に向けて：炭素価格が金融発展の環境悪影響をいかに緩和するか

Towards a Low-Carbon Economy: How Carbon Pricing Mitigates the Adverse Environmental Impact of Financial Development (原題)

Tho Pham, Chau Le, Shrabani Saha

UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia)📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-12#炭素価格Origin: Global経営インパクト: 資金調達対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.1002/ijfe.70320
原典: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/104806/1/Accepted_Manuscrip_IJFE-24-2702.docx

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

1990〜2024年の70カ国パネルで、金融発展がCO₂排出を増やす一方、炭素価格が直接削減し金融拡大の悪影響を弱めることを示す。ETSは炭素税より安定的に効果を発揮し、炭素税は税率の厳格さに効果が依存する。パリ協定以降に効果が強まり、化石燃料から再エネへの移行がメカニズムとして確認された。

English

Using a 70-country panel (1990–2024), the study finds financial development raises CO₂ emissions, while carbon pricing directly cuts emissions and weakens this adverse effect. Emissions trading systems show more consistent mitigation than carbon taxes, whose effectiveness depends on rate stringency. Effects strengthened after the Paris Agreement, with a fossil-to-renewable shift as the mechanism.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

日本ではGX推進機構や成長志向型カーボンプライシング（GX-ETS、炭素賦課）の設計議論が進行中であり、ETSと炭素税の効果差・税率の厳格性の重要性は制度設計に直接示唆を与える。SSBJ開示と炭素価格の内部化を結びつける投資家対話にも資する。

In the global GX context

Directly informs global carbon-pricing design debates under ISSB/TCFD disclosure and transition finance: it provides cross-country evidence that ETS design and stringent tax rates—not mere adoption—drive decarbonisation, relevant to EU ETS reform and emerging-market carbon market development.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:炭素価格の手段別効果と金融発展との相互作用を識別する実証枠組みの参照点となる。

🏢実務担当者:炭素価格リスクを内部炭素価格やシナリオ分析に織り込む際、ETSと税率水準の差を考慮すべき根拠となる。

🏛政策担当者:炭素税は導入だけでなく税率の厳格性が不可欠であり、ETSとの政策ミックス設計の重要性を示す。

📄 Abstract（原文）

This study examines whether carbon pricing can reconcile financial development with environmental sustainability using a panel of 70 developed and developing countries over the period 1990–2024. Employing an interaction framework and alternative measures of carbon-pricing adoption and price stringency, we find that financial development increases CO₂ emissions, whereas carbon pricing directly reduces emissions and weakens the adverse environmental effects of financial expansion. Emissions trading systems exhibit more consistent and precisely estimated mitigation effects than carbon taxes. Importantly, the effectiveness of carbon taxation depends on the strength of the price signal: while the adoption of a carbon tax alone is not significantly associated with emissions, higher carbon-tax rates are associated with significant emissions reductions. This finding suggests that introducing a carbon tax may be insufficient unless rates are stringent enough to alter production, investment, and energy-use decisions. Mechanism analysis further indicates that carbon pricing supports decarbonisation by encouraging a shift from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. Its effectiveness has strengthened since the Paris Agreement, particularly for emissions trading systems. The findings are robust to alternative specifications and tests addressing endogeneity. Overall, the results demonstrate that carbon pricing can mitigate the environmental costs of financial development and facilitate the transition towards cleaner energy. They also highlight the importance of aligning the choice and design of carbon-pricing instruments with countries’ economic conditions, institutional capacities, and climate-policy objectives.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。