Carbon Taxation and Climate Policy in the United Kingdom: The Coverage Problem in UK Net-Zero Policy Architecture
英国における炭素課税と気候政策：ネットゼロ政策アーキテクチャにおけるカバレッジ問題 (AI 翻訳)
Daramola Joseph Omoyele
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
英国は2050年までのネットゼロを目指し、炭素価格制度を中核政策としているが、ETS対象セクターと非ETSセクターで削減実績に非対称性がある。本論文は、ETS対象範囲が排出量の約25%に限られ、非ETSセクターでは実質炭素価格がほぼゼロであることを示す。また、気候変動課税（CCL）に組み込まれた「電化ペナルティ」を特定し、電化促進を阻害していると指摘する。政策アーキテクチャの改革が必要であると結論付けている。
English
The UK's net-zero target relies on carbon pricing, but ETS-covered sectors have reduced emissions while non-ETS sectors (75% of emissions) lag. This paper shows that effective carbon prices in transport, buildings, and small businesses are near zero, and identifies an 'electrification penalty' in the Climate Change Levy. The authors propose extending ETS coverage, reforming the Levy, and implementing border carbon adjustments.
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
日本でもGX-ETSや炭素賦課金の導入が議論されているが、本論文が析出するカバレッジ非対称性や電化ペナルティの問題は、日本の政策設計にも重要な示唆を与える。特に、非ETSセクターの実質的な価格シグナルの欠如や、エネルギー税制の整合性は日本でも課題である。
In the global GX context
This paper contributes to the global debate on carbon pricing effectiveness by highlighting the critical role of policy architecture beyond nominal prices. The 'electrification penalty' concept is novel and relevant for jurisdictions with overlapping energy and carbon taxes. The findings underscore that achieving net-zero requires systematic reform of fiscal incentives, not just higher carbon prices.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:The paper provides empirical evidence on the limitations of carbon pricing when coverage is partial, and introduces the Electrification Penalty Index (EPI) as a diagnostic tool.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can use the findings to assess the risk of policy divergence across sectors and prepare for potential reforms in carbon pricing and energy taxation.
🏛政策担当者:Policymakers should note that even high nominal carbon prices can be ineffective if coverage is limited and tax structures create perverse incentives against electrification.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The United Kingdom has committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with carbon pricing positioned as a central policy instrument. However, recent emissions outcomes reveal a pronounced asymmetry: sectors covered by emissions trading have achieved substantial reductions, while non-ETS sectors accounting for around 75% of territorial emissions have shown limited progress. Using verified UK ETS emissions data (2021–2024) and territorial greenhouse gas statistics, this paper shows that the effectiveness of carbon pricing is closely constrained by features of policy architecture, including limited sectoral coverage (around 25% of emissions), fragmented fiscal incentives, and structural inconsistencies in energy taxation. We identify an ‘electrification penalty’ embedded in the Climate Change Levy, whereby electricity faces higher effective carbon taxation than fossil fuels despite its lower carbon intensity. To characterise this distortion, we introduce the Electrification Penalty Index (EPI), which illustrates how the UK tax system inadvertently discourages electrification. The analysis shows that, despite high nominal carbon prices (£50–60/tCO₂), the UK’s policy architecture generates sharply divergent incentive regimes: investment-grade price signals in ETS sectors alongside near-zero effective carbon prices in transport, buildings, and small businesses. This coverage asymmetry represents one of the central constraints on UK decarbonisation. We conclude that achieving net-zero will require systematic reform of policy architecture, including extending ETS coverage, harmonising effective carbon prices through Climate Change Levy reform, implementing border carbon adjustments, and deploying targeted complementary measures where pricing alone proves insufficient.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.37745/bjes.2013/vol14n15982first seen 2026-05-05 23:01:40
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。