炭素価格と開発：脱炭素・競争力・経済成長の両立

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:炭素価格制度の設計変数（還元・国境調整・リンキング）と二重配当・リーケージの実証を体系的に整理した比較枠組みとして活用できる。

🏢実務担当者:CBAMや炭素価格上昇が鉄鋼・セメント等のコスト構造と輸出競争力に与える影響を把握し、社内炭素価格・調達戦略の前提設定に役立てられる。

🏛政策担当者:GX-ETSや炭素賦課金の設計で、収益リサイクルと国境調整・国際連携を組み合わせた政策アーキテクチャの重要性を示す参考になる。

<p><span>Carbon pricing has emerged as the central economic instrument for confronting what the report calls “the greatest market failure in human history”—the unpriced externality of greenhouse gas emissions . This report argues that the effectiveness of carbon pricing depends not on whether governments choose a carbon tax or an emissions trading system (ETS), but on the broader policy architecture surrounding it: revenue recycling, competitiveness protections, and international coordination.</span></p> <p><span>The analysis identifies a core policy trilemma: nations must simultaneously decarbonize rapidly, preserve industrial competitiveness, and sustain economic growth. Empirical evidence from more than 70 global initiatives shows that well‑designed carbon pricing systems can reconcile these objectives. Leakage risks—where production shifts to jurisdictions with weaker climate policies—are concentrated in energy‑intensive, trade‑exposed sectors such as steel, cement, aluminum, and chemicals. Tools like free allocation and, increasingly, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) mitigate these risks by equalizing carbon costs between domestic producers and foreign competitors .</span></p> <p><span>Revenue recycling is shown to be decisive for macroeconomic outcomes. When carbon revenues—now exceeding $100 billion annually—are used to reduce distortionary taxes or fund household dividends, economies can achieve a “double dividend”: lower emissions and higher economic efficiency. Equity considerations are essential; without compensatory transfers, carbon pricing can be regressive, as illustrated by France’s Yellow Vests protests. The report highlights growing global trends toward channeling revenues into green technology investment, innovation funds, and just‑transition programs.</span></p> <p><span>Case studies of the EU, China, Canada, and California demonstrate divergent but converging pathways toward robust carbon pricing. The EU’s Phase 4 ETS and CBAM represent a shift toward global standard‑setting; China’s intensity‑based system reflects developmental priorities; Canada’s hybrid model balances federal stringency with provincial autonomy; and California’s system exemplifies price stability and equity‑focused reinvestment.</span></p> <p><span>The report concludes that carbon pricing, when embedded within a coherent strategy of border adjustments, predictable price trajectories, dividend transfers, and international market linking, becomes not a punitive tax but a catalyst for industrial modernization and long‑run economic resilience. As carbon prices rise toward the $75–$100/tCO₂ range needed for Paris alignment, coordinated global action will be essential to prevent leakage and accelerate the transition to a low‑carbon economy.</span></p>

• openaire https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7296179first seen 2026-11-05 04:27:38 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:24:37