Carbon Taxes vs. Cap-and-Trade as Responses to Greenhouse Gas Externalities A comparative secondary research paper on the EU Emissions Trading System and Sweden's carbon tax
温室効果ガスの外部性に対する炭素税とキャップ・アンド・トレードの比較：EU排出量取引制度とスウェーデンの炭素税に関する二次研究 (AI 翻訳)
Chaarvi Parasher
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、炭素税とキャップ・アンド・トレードという2つの市場ベースの気候政策手段を比較する。EU ETSとスウェーデンの炭素税の事例研究に基づき、両制度とも広範なカバレッジと有意な炭素価格の下で排出削減に効果を発揮するが、設計の詳細（カバレッジ、収入使途、価格安定性、例外措置、貿易暴露対策）が効率性と公平性を左右することを示す。
English
This paper compares carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems as instruments to correct greenhouse gas externalities. Through case studies of the EU ETS and Sweden's carbon tax, it finds that both can achieve meaningful emissions reductions when designed with broad coverage and material carbon prices. The key conclusion is that design details (coverage, revenue use, price stability, exemptions, trade-exposure protections) largely determine efficiency and equity, rather than the instrument type itself.
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
日本は現在、GX-ETSの設計を進めており、炭素税と排出量取引のベストミックスが議論されている。本論文はEUとスウェーデンの実証的教訓を整理しており、日本の政策設計に直接的な示唆を与える。特に、例外措置の扱いや産業競争力への配慮は日本企業の関心事である。
In the global GX context
This comparative review of EU ETS (cap-and-trade) and Sweden's carbon tax provides evidence-based insights for global carbon pricing design. As more jurisdictions adopt or refine carbon pricing (e.g., China's ETS, Brazil's carbon market), the paper's emphasis on design features over instrument choice is timely. It also highlights the importance of revenue recycling and trade exposure protections—key issues in the ongoing ISSB and transition finance debates.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a concise synthesis of empirical evidence on carbon tax vs. ETS, useful for researchers studying carbon pricing effectiveness.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights which design features (coverage, exemptions, price stability) matter most for compliance costs—relevant for corporate sustainability teams monitoring regulatory developments.
🏛政策担当者:Offers clear lessons for designing efficient and politically durable carbon pricing, particularly the trade-offs between price vs. quantity instruments.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Greenhouse gas emissions are a negative externality because private decisions to burn fossil fuels do not fully reflect the climate damages imposed on others. This paper compares two market-based instruments designed to correct that failure: carbon taxes, which fix the price of emissions and allow quantities to adjust, and cap-and-trade systems, which fix the emissions quantity and allow the permit price to adjust. The case studies are the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Sweden's national carbon tax. The review finds that both instruments can generate meaningful emissions reductions when their coverage is broad, their carbon price is material, and exemptions are limited. Peer-reviewed evidence estimates that the EU ETS reduced regulated manufacturing emissions by 14% in Phase I and 16.3% in Phase II, and avoided about 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2008 and 2016. For Sweden, synthetic-control and firm-level studies estimate an almost 11% transport-sector reduction and large manufacturing-sector responses to carbon pricing. The main conclusion is not that one instrument is universally superior. Design details - coverage, revenue use, price stability, exemptions, and trade-exposure protections - largely determine efficiency, equity, and political durability.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- crossref https://doi.org/10.47191/jefms/v9-i7-42first seen 2026-07-28 06:22:39
🔔 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。