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
炭素税 vs. キャップ・アンド・トレード：温室効果ガス外部性への対応としての比較二次研究論文：EU排出量取引制度とスウェーデンの炭素税を事例として (AI 翻訳)
Chaarvi Parasher
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、温室効果ガス外部性を是正する2つの市場ベースの政策手段―炭素税（価格固定）とキャップ・アンド・トレード（数量固定）―を比較する。EU ETSとスウェーデンの炭素税を事例に、それぞれが排出削減に有効である一方、制度設計の詳細が効率性や政治的持続可能性を左右することを示す。
English
This paper compares carbon taxes and cap-and-trade as instruments to correct greenhouse gas externalities, using the EU ETS and Sweden's carbon tax as case studies. It finds that both can achieve significant emissions reductions when well-designed, but coverage, price stability, and exemptions are more critical than instrument choice.
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リーグを通じてカーボンプライシングの導入が進められていますが、本論文はEU ETS（キャップ・アンド・トレード）とスウェーデン炭素税を比較し、制度設計の詳細（範囲、価格安定化、免除等）が効果に大きく影響することを示しています。日本の政策設計に示唆を与えるでしょう。
In the global GX context
This paper compares two major carbon pricing instruments (EU ETS and Sweden's carbon tax) and synthesizes empirical evidence on their effectiveness. For global audiences, it highlights that design details—coverage, price stability, exemptions—are more critical than the instrument choice itself. This is relevant for jurisdictions like the US, China, and others designing or reforming carbon pricing mechanisms.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a concise overview of empirical evidence comparing carbon tax and cap-and-trade, useful for researchers seeking a comparative synthesis.
🏢実務担当者:Policymakers and corporate sustainability teams can use insights on design features that drive emissions reductions and economic efficiency.
🏛政策担当者:Central for policymakers: the paper shows that design details (coverage, price floor, exemptions) determine success; no one-size-fits-all.
📄 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
- Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/21552878first seen 2026-07-26 04:17:36
🔔 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。