← 論文一覧に戻る

国境炭素課金から国内行動へ：国内炭素価格は炭素リーケージへのより公平な解決策となり得るか

From border carbon penalties to domestic action: can domestic carbon pricing provide a fairer solution to carbon leakage? (原題)

Rui Tang, Dingyao Yu, Chunjia Han, Yanping Li, Wen‐Long Shang

Applied Energy📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-09-11#炭素価格Origin: CN経営インパクト: 調達リスク対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2026.128789
原典: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2026.128789

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本論文はGTAP-Eベースの再帰的更新型多地域CGEモデルと産業連関分析を用い、国境炭素調整（BCA）、協調的国内炭素価格、費用衡平に基づく差別価格の経済・環境・厚生効果を比較評価する。国境措置のみでは限定的な排出削減と貿易・厚生の再分配にとどまり、一律国内価格は最大の削減と最大の厚生損失をもたらす。差別価格は削減の相当部分を維持しつつ厚生費用を抑え、中国の国内価格対応は対外措置依存より緩和を強化する。

English

Using a recursively updated multi-regional CGE model (GTAP-E) with input-output derived trade shocks, this study compares unilateral border carbon adjustments, coordinated domestic pricing, and cost-equity differentiated pricing. Border-only measures yield modest global reductions while redistributing trade and welfare; uniform domestic pricing maximizes reductions but also welfare losses, while differentiated pricing retains mitigation at lower welfare cost. China's domestic pricing strengthens its mitigation relative to relying on foreign border measures.

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

炭素国境調整（CBAM等）と国内炭素価格の比較は、日本がGX推進と炭素国境措置への対応を検討する上で直接的に参考となる。特に差別価格設計は、日本の炭素価格制度や産業競争力維持の議論に示唆を与える。

In the global GX context

As the EU's CBAM and other border carbon measures reshape global trade and mitigation cost allocation, this study offers a comparative assessment of border versus domestic pricing regimes. It contributes to the global debate on fair carbon leakage solutions and the design of coordinated carbon pricing, relevant to ISSB/TCFD disclosure of carbon costs and transition finance.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:CGEモデルと産業連関分析を組み合わせた炭素価格政策の比較評価手法と、差別価格の厚生効果に関する知見を提供する。

🏢実務担当者:炭素国境調整が自社の輸出競争力や調達コストに与える影響を理解し、国内炭素価格への対応戦略を検討する材料となる。

🏛政策担当者:国境炭素調整と国内炭素価格の政策設計において、公平性と実効性のトレードオフを考慮する必要性を示唆する。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Amid the rapid reconfiguration of the global climate governance regime, border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are reshaping the international allocation of mitigation costs through trade and extraterritorial policy effects. Carbon charges based on embodied-emission estimates affect international competitiveness and may impose additional adjustment pressures on developing economies. Using a recursively updated multi-regional computable general equilibrium model based on the GTAP-E database, combined with input–output accounting to derive bilateral, sector-specific ad valorem trade shocks, this study evaluates the economic, environmental, and welfare effects of alternative carbon-pricing regimes, including unilateral border adjustments, coordinated domestic pricing, and cost-equity-based differentiated pricing. The results show that border-only measures achieve modest global emissions reductions while redistributing trade and welfare effects across economies, without uniformly benefiting all implementing countries. Uniform domestic pricing achieves the largest emissions reduction but also the greatest welfare loss, whereas differentiated pricing retains a substantial share of mitigation with lower welfare costs. China's domestic pricing response strengthens its mitigation relative to reliance on foreign border measures alone, although its global effects remain limited. These findings inform the comparative design of carbon-pricing policies and China's carbon-footprint governance.

🔗 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。