gxceed
← 論文一覧に戻る

The market substitution argument – what can we learn from the 2020–2023 Chinese coal import bans?

市場代替論の議論 – 2020～2023年の中国石炭輸入禁止から何が学べるか？ (AI 翻訳)

David Close, I Gde Agung Chandra Satriya, Chelsea Golding, Hamish MacDonald, Andrew Garnett

Australian Energy Producers journal.📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-05-14#政策Origin: CN
DOI: 10.1071/ep25160
原典: https://doi.org/10.1071/ep25160

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

2020～2023年に中国が実施した豪州産石炭の輸入禁止措置を事例に、市場代替論（MSA）を検証。中国はインドネシア、ロシア、モンダから輸入を増やし国内生産も拡大した結果、豪州からの輸入減少は中国の石炭消費や排出削減に直結しなかったことを実証。短期的な供給途絶では代替が容易であり、排出削減には国際協調が必要との示唆を得た。

English

Using China's unofficial ban on Australian coal imports from 2020–2023, this paper tests the market substitution argument (MSA). It finds that China substituted Australian coal with imports from Indonesia, Russia, and Mongolia, and boosted domestic production, so the ban did not directly reduce China's coal consumption or emissions. The study highlights that unilateral supply disruptions may not achieve global emission reductions due to substitution.

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

日本も大量の石炭とLNGを輸入しており、輸出規制が排出削減に直結しないという本論文の知見は、日本のGX政策やエネルギー安全保障戦略に重要な示唆を与える。単独国での供給制限ではなく、国際的な枠組みでの排出削減が必要であることを示す。

In the global GX context

This paper challenges the assumption that reducing fossil fuel exports from one country leads to global emission reductions, relevant to debates around carbon leakage and the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies. It provides empirical evidence from a major trade disruption, useful for policymakers and investors assessing transition risks in energy markets.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on substitution effects in coal markets, useful for modeling carbon leakage and trade-climate interactions.

🏢実務担当者:Companies in coal and LNG supply chains should consider substitution risks when assessing the impact of trade disruptions on emissions.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights that unilateral import bans may not reduce global emissions; international coordination is essential for climate policy effectiveness.

📄 Abstract（原文）

Following diplomatic tensions between Australia and China in the late 2010s, China implemented an unofficial ban on Australian coal imports from late-2020 until early-2023 (the Ban). The Ban provides an opportunity to review what transpires when a major commodity trading relationship is disrupted. Specifically, we look at whether substitution occurs, and the market substitution argument (MSA), given its relevance to legal cases involving fossil fuel exports. In the context of energy, the MSA states that the demand for energy commodities is relatively inelastic and therefore in the absence of supply of an energy commodity from a given source an alternative supplier will still provide the energy commodity. This is relevant to coal exports, where the courts have been asked to consider whether the MSA is sufficient to support coal mine approvals. We contend that the MSA is relevant to liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Coal import, production and consumption data during the Ban illustrate that China substituted Australian coal imports with greater imports from Indonesia, Russia and Mongolia, while also boosting domestic production to avoid shortfalls. There are strong climate change related arguments to avoid the ongoing unabated combustion of fossil fuels for energy. We have illustrated with data, however, that at least in the short term, a reduction in Australian coal exports to China didn’t lead directly to lower coal consumption or lower emissions in China.

🔗 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。