1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Economics
  4. Volume 15, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 15, 2023

The Economics of Border Carbon Adjustment: Rationale and Impacts of Compensating for Carbon at the Border

Abstract

International trade contributes directly to global greenhouse gas emissions, as the carbon content of high-emission products is priced differently in different countries. This phenomenon is termed carbon leakage. Thus, not putting a price on carbon is theoretically equivalent to an export subsidy, although that would be difficult to challenge in the context of multilateral trade law. Leakage can be alleviated by pricing the carbon embedded in imported products through a border carbon adjustment (BCA), be it a tax, a carbon tariff, or a regulation requiring the purchase of emissions allowances. The design of a BCA is a compromise between environmental effectiveness in preventing leakage, economic effectiveness in preserving competitiveness and ensuring acceptability, technical feasibility of the implementation, and World Trade Organization compatibility. An import-limited BCA is more effective than free emissions allowances in reducing leakage, but it does not preserve the export competitiveness of the country imposing it.

Keyword(s): border carbon adjustment, carbon leakage, carbon tariff, climate club, JEL F14, JEL F18, JEL H23, JEL Q40, JEL Q54, JEL Q56
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040
2023-09-13
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/15/1/annurev-economics-082322-034040.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrell J. 2022.. Database for the European Union Transaction Log. Tech. Rep., Leibniz Cent. Eur. Econ. Res. (ZEW), Mannheim, Ger:
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguiar A, Chepeliev M, Corong EL, McDougall R, van der Mensbrugghe D. 2019.. GTAP data base: version 10. . J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 4:(1):1–27
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2012.. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63:(3):336–54
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2013.. Estimating the effects of Kyoto on bilateral trade flows using matching econometrics. . World Econ. 36:(3):303–30
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2015.. Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 97:(1):104–15
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Al Khourdajie A, Finus M. 2020.. Measures to enhance the effectiveness of international climate agreements: the case of border carbon adjustments. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 124::103405
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aldy JE. 2017.. Frameworks for evaluating policy approaches to address the competitiveness concerns of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. . Natl. Tax J. 70:(2):395–419
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Antimiani A, Costantini V, Martini C, Salvatici L, Tommasino MC. 2013.. Assessing alternative solutions to carbon leakage. . Energy Econ. 36::299–311
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Armington PS. 1969.. The geographic pattern of trade and the effects of price changes. . Int. Monet. Fund Staff Pap. 16:(2):179–201
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Arrow K, Cropper M, Gollier C, Groom B, Heal G, et al. 2013.. Determining benefits and costs for future generations. . Science 341:(6144):349–50
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Aus dem Moore N, Großkurth P, Themann M. 2019.. Multinational corporations and the EU Emissions Trading System: the specter of asset erosion and creeping deindustrialization. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 94::C1–26
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Aust. Product. Comm. 2011.. Carbon emission policies in key economies. Tech. Rep., Aust. Product. Comm., Canberra:
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Babiker MH. 2005.. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. . J. Int. Econ. 65:(2):421–45
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Balistreri EJ, Böhringer C, Rutherford TF. 2018.. Carbon policy and the structure of global trade. . World Econ. 41:(1):194–221
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Balistreri EJ, Kaffine DT, Yonezawa H. 2019.. Optimal environmental border adjustments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 74:(3):1037–75
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Barrett S. 2002.. Towards a better climate treaty. . World Econ. 3:(2):35–45
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Baylis K, Fullerton D, Karney DH. 2014.. Negative leakage. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1:(1/2):51–73
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bekkers E, Cariola G. 2022.. Comparing different approaches to tackle the challenges of global carbon pricing. Unpubl. Ms., World Trade Organ., Geneva:
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bellora C, Fontagné L. 2020.. Possible carbon adjustment policies: an overview. . In Four Briefings on Trade-Related Aspects of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms. Strasbourg, Fr.:: Dir. Gen. Extern. Policies Union
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bellora C, Fontagné L. 2023.. EU in search of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. . Energy Econ. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ben-David I, Jang Y, Kleimeier S, Viehs M. 2021.. Exporting pollution: Where do multinational firms emit CO2?. Econ. Policy 36:(107):377–437
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H. 1986.. On the private provision of public goods. . J. Public Econ. 29:(1):25–49
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bernard A, Vielle M. 2009.. Assessment of European Union transition scenarios with a special focus on the issue of carbon leakage. . Energy Econ. 31:(Suppl. 2):S274–84
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bierbrauer F, Felbermayr G, Ockenfels A, Schmidt KM, Südekum J. 2021.. A CO2-border adjustment mechanism as a building block of a climate club. Policy Brief 151 , Kiel Inst. World Econ., Kiel, Ger:
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Black S, Minnett D, Parry I, Roaf J, Zhunussova K. 2022.. A framework for comparing climate mitigation policies across countries. Work. Pap. 22/254 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Blanke J, Chiesa T 2013.. The travel and tourism competitiveness report 2013: reducing barriers to economic growth and job creation. . Insight Rep., World Econ. Forum, Geneva:
  27. Boeters S, Bollen J. 2012.. Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy. . Energy Econ. 34::S181–89
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Böhringer C, Balistreri EJ, Rutherford TF. 2012a.. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). . Energy Econ. 34:(Suppl. 2):S97–110
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Böhringer C, Bye B, Fæhn T, Rosendahl KE. 2012b.. Alternative designs for tariffs on embodied carbon: a global cost-effectiveness analysis. . Energy Econ. 34:(Suppl. 2):S143–53
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Böhringer C, Carbone JC, Rutherford TF. 2016.. The strategic value of carbon tariffs. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8:(1):28–51
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Böhringer C, Carbone JC, Rutherford TF. 2018.. Embodied carbon tariffs. . Scand. J. Econ. 120:(1):183–210
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Böhringer C, Fischer C, Rosendahl KE. 2014a.. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: Size matters. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67:(3):318–39
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Böhringer C, Fischer C, Rosendahl KE, Rutherford TF. 2022.. Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments. . Nat. Clim. Change 12::22–29
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Böhringer C, Garcia-Muros X, Cazcarro I, Arto I. 2017.. The efficiency cost of protective measures in climate policy. . Energy Policy 104::446–54
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Böhringer C, Lange A, Rutherford TF. 2014b.. Optimal emission pricing in the presence of international spillovers: decomposing leakage and terms-of-trade motives. . J. Public Econ. 110::101–11
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Böhringer C, Rutherford TF. 2002.. Carbon abatement and international spillovers. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:(3):391–417
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Böhringer C, Schneider J, Asane-Otoo E. 2021.. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 78:(4):669–708
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Borghesi S, Cainelli G, Mazzanti M. 2015.. Linking emission trading to environmental innovation: evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. . Res. Policy 44:(3):669–83
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Borghesi S, Franco C, Marin G. 2020.. Outward foreign direct investment patterns of Italian firms in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. . Scand. J. Econ. 122:(1):219–56
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Branger F, Quirion P. 2014.. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. . Ecol. Econ. 99::C29–39
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Branger F, Quirion P, Chevallier J. 2017.. Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: much ado about nothing. . Energy J. 37:(3):109–35
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Bruegge C, Deryugina T, Myers E. 2019.. The distributional effects of building energy codes. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6:(Suppl. 1):S95–127
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Burniaux JM, Oliveira Martins J. 2012.. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. . Econ. Theory 49:(2):473–95
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Calel R. 2020.. Adopt or innovate: understanding technological responses to cap-and-trade. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 12:(3):170–201
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Calel R, Dechezleprêtre A. 2016.. Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the European carbon market. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 98:(1):173–91
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Carbone JC, Rivers N. 2017.. The impacts of unilateral climate policy on competitiveness: evidence from computable general equilibrium models. . Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11:(1):24–42
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Chateau J, Jaumotte F, Schwerhoff G. 2022.. Climate policy options: a comparison of economic performance. Work. Pap. 22/242 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Chepeliev M. 2020.. Development of the Non-CO2GHG Emissions Database for the GTAP 10A data base. Res. Memo. 32 , Glob. Trade Anal. Proj. (GTAP), Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN:
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Cherniwchan J, Copeland B, Taylor M. 2017.. Trade and the environment: new methods, measurements, and results. . Annu. Rev. Econ. 9::59–85
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Chichilnisky G, Heal G. 1994.. Who should abate carbon emissions? An international viewpoint. . Econ. Lett. 44:(4):443–49
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Colmer J, Martin R, Muûls M, Wagner U. 2022.. Does pricing carbon mitigate climate change? Firm-level evidence from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Discuss. Pap. 16982 , Cent. Econ. Policy Res., London:
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Copeland B, Shapiro J, Taylor S. 2022.. Globalization and the environmment. . In Handbook of International Economics 5, ed. G Gopinath, E Helpman, K Rogoff , pp. 61–146 Amsterdam:: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Corden WM. 1966.. The structure of a tariff system and the effective protective rate. . J. Political Econ. 74:(3):221–37
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Cornes R, Sandler T. 1984.. The theory of public goods: non-Nash behaviour. . J. Public Econ. 23:(3):367–79
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Cosbey A, Droege S, Fischer C, Munnings C. 2019.. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. . Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13:(1):3–22
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Cristea A, Hummels D, Puzzello L, Avetisyan M. 2013.. Trade and the greenhouse gas emissions from international freight transport. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:(1):153–73
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Daubanes JX, Henriet F, Schubert K. 2021.. Unilateral CO2 reduction policy with more than one carbon energy source. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 8:(3):543–75
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Davis LW, Knittel CR. 2019.. Are fuel economy standards regressive?. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6:(Suppl. 1):S37–63
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Dechezleprêtre A, Gennaioli C, Martin R, Muûls M, Stoerk T. 2022.. Searching for carbon leaks in multinational companies. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 112::1–20
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Dechezleprêtre A, Sato M. 2017.. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. . Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11:(2):183–206
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Demailly D, Quirion P. 2006.. Leakage from climate policies and border-tax adjustment: lessons from a geographic model of the cement industry. . In The Design of Climate Policy, ed. R Guesnerie, H Tulkens , pp. 333–58 Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Di Giovanni J, Levchenko AA, Mejean I. 2017.. Large firms and international business cycle comovement. . Am. Econ. Rev. 107:(5):598–602
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Di Maria C, Van der Werf E. 2008.. Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change. . Environ. Resour. Econ. 39:(2):55–74
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Douenne T, Fabre A. 2022.. Yellow vests, pessimistic beliefs, and carbon tax aversion. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 14:(1):81–110
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Droege S. 2011.. Using border measures to address carbon flows. . Clim. Policy 11:(5):1191–201
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Elliott J, Foster I, Kortum S, Jush GK, Munson T, Weisbach D. 2013.. Unilateral carbon taxes, border tax adjustments and carbon leakage. . Theor. Inq. Law 14:(1):207–44
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Elliott J, Foster I, Kortum S, Munson T, Perez Cervantes F, Weisbach D. 2010.. Trade and carbon taxes. . Am. Econ. Rev. 100:(2):465–69
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Ellis J, Nachtigall D, Venmans F. 2019.. Carbon pricing and competitiveness: Are they at odds? Work. Pap. 152 , OECD Environ. Dir., Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Englisch J, Falcao T. 2021.. EU carbon border adjustments for imported products and WTO law. Work. Pap., Univ. Münster/World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Eur. Commission. 2011.. Commission decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. . Off. J. Eur. Union L130::1–45
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Eur. Council. 2023.. Directive (Eu) 2023/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme. Eur. Council, Brussels, Belg., Febr. 8
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Feenstra RC, Hanson GH. 1999.. The impact of outsourcing and high-technology capital on wages: estimates for the United States, 1979–1990. . Q. J. Econ. 114:(3):907–40
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Felbermayr G, Peterson S. 2020.. Economic assessment of carbon leakage and carbon border adjustment. . In Four Briefings on Trade-Related Aspects of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms. Strasbourg, Fr:.: Dir. Gen. Extern. Policies Union
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Felder S, Rutherford T. 1993.. Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: the consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25:(2):162–76
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Fischer C, Fox AK. 2012.. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64:(2):199–216
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Fischer C, Hoffmann SA, Yoshino Y. 2002.. Multilateral trade agreements and market-based environmental policies. Discuss. Pap. 02-28 , Res. Future, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Fouré J, Guimbard H, Monjon S. 2016.. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: What would be the cost for the European Union?. Energy Econ. 54::349–62
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Fowlie M, Petersen C, Reguant M. 2021.. Border carbon adjustments when carbon intensity varies across producers: evidence from California. . AEA Pap. Proc. 111::401–5
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Fowlie ML, Reguant M. 2022.. Mitigating emissions leakage in incomplete carbon markets. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9:(2):307–43
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Freund C, Pierola MD. 2015.. Export superstars. . Rev. Econ. Stat. 97:(5):1023–32
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Garnadt N, Grimm V, Reuter WH. 2021.. Carbon adjustment mechanisms: empirics, design and caveats. Work. Pap., Ger. Counc. Econ. Experts/Univ. Erlangen
     [Google Scholar]
  82. GATT (Gen. Agreem. Tariffs Trade). 1947.. Article II: schedules of concessions. . In General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, pp. 3–5 Geneva:: GATT. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Gaubert C, Itskhoki O. 2021.. Granular comparative advantage. . J. Political Econ. 129:(3):871–939
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Gerlagh R, Kuik O. 2014.. Spill or leak? Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers: a CGE analysis. . Energy Econ. 45::381–88
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Gollier C, Tirole J. 2015.. Negotiating effective institutions against climate change. . Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 4:(2):5–28
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Grunewald N, Martinez-Zarzoso I. 2016.. Did the Kyoto Protocol fail? An evaluation of the effect of the Kyoto Protocol on CO2 emissions. . Environ. Dev. Econ. 21:(1):1–22
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Harstad B. 2012.. Buy coal! A case for supply-side environmental policy. . J. Political Econ. 120:(1):77–115
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Hartl A. 2019.. The effects of the Kyoto Protocol on the carbon trade balance. . Rev. World Econ. 155::539–74
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Hémous D. 2016.. The dynamic impact of unilateral environmental policies. . J. Int. Econ. 103::80–95
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Hertwich EG. 2020.. Carbon fueling complex global value chains tripled in the period 1995–2012. . Energy Econ. 86::104651
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Hoel M. 1994.. Efficient climate policy in the presence of free riders. . J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27:(3):259–74
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Hoel M. 1996.. Should a carbon tax be differentiated across sectors?. J. Public Econ. 59:(1):17–32
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Holland SP, Hughes JE, Knittel CR. 2009.. Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards?. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 1:(1):106–46
     [Google Scholar]
  94. IMF (Int. Monet. Fund), OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.). 2022.. Delivering climate mitigation under diverse national policy approaches: an independent IMF/OECD report to support the German 2022 G7 presidency. Tech. Rep., IMF/OECD, Washington, DC/Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Joltreau E, Sommerfeld K. 2019.. Why does emissions trading under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) not affect firms' competitiveness? Empirical findings from the literature. . Clim. Policy 19:(4):453–71
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Keen M, Kotsogiannis C. 2014.. Coordinating climate and trade policies: Pareto efficiency and the role of border tax adjustments. . J. Int. Econ. 94:(1):119–28
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Keen M, Parry I, Roaf J. 2021.. Border carbon adjustments: rationale, design and impact. Work. Pap. 2021/239 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Klotz R, Sharma RR. 2023.. Trade barriers and CO2. . J. Int. Econ. 141::103726
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Koch N, Basse Mama H. 2019.. Does the EU Emissions Trading System induce investment leakage? Evidence from German multinational firms. . Energy Econ. 81::479–92
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Kolstad C, Urama K, Broome J, Bruvoll A, Olvera MC, et al. 2014.. Social, economic and ethical concepts and methods. . In Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. O Edenhofer, R Pichs-Madruga, Y Sokona, E Farahani, S Kadner, et al ., pp. 173–248 Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Kortum S, Weisbach D. 2017.. The design of border adjustment for carbon prices. . Natl. Tax J. 70:(2):421–46
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Kreickemeier U, Richter PM. 2014.. Trade and the environment: the role of firm heterogeneity. . Rev. Int. Econ. 22:(2):209–25
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Kuik O, Gerlagh R. 2003.. Trade liberalization and carbon leakage. . Energy J. 24:(3):97–120
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Kuik O, Hofkes M. 2010.. Border adjustment for European emissions trading: competitiveness and carbon leakage. . Energy Policy 38:(4):1741–48
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1997.. United Nations Treaty Series 2303, Dec. 10. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Larch M, Wanner J. 2017.. Carbon tariffs: an analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects. . J. Int. Econ. 109::195–213
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Levinson A. 2016.. Pollution haven hypothesis. . In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. M Vernengo, E Perez Caldentey, BJ Rosser Jr. , pp. 1–5 London:: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Levinson A. 2019.. Energy efficiency standards are more regressive than energy taxes: theory and evidence. . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 6:(Suppl. 1):S7–36
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Levinson A, Taylor MS. 2008.. Unmasking the pollution haven effect. . Int. Econ. Rev. 49:(1):223–54
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Long NV. 2015.. The green paradox in open economies: lessons from static and dynamic models. . Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 9:(2):266–84
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Markusen J. 1975.. International externalities and optimal tax structures. . J. Int. Econ. 5:(1):15–29
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Mathiesen L, Mæstad O. 2004.. Climate policy and the steel industry: achieving global emission reductions by an incomplete climate agreement. . Energy J. 25:(4):91–114
     [Google Scholar]
  113. McKibbin WJ, Morris AC, Wilcoxen PJ. 2010.. Subsidizing energy efficient household capital: How does it compare to a carbon tax? Clim. Energy Econ. Proj. Discuss. Pap., Brookings Inst., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  114. McKibbin WJ, Ross MT, Shackleton R, Wilcoxen PJ. 1999.. Emissions trading, capital flows and the Kyoto Protocol. . Energy J. 20:(Spec. Issue):287–333
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Mehling MA, Van Asselt H, Das K, Droege S, Verkuijl C. 2019.. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. . Am. J. Int. Law 113:(3):433–81
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Meunier G, Ponssard JP, Quirion P. 2014.. Carbon leakage and capacity-based allocations: Is the EU right?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68:(2):262–79
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Misch F, Wingender P. 2021.. Revisiting carbon leakage. Work. Pap. 2021/107 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Mörsdorf G. 2022.. A simple fix for carbon leakage? Assessing the environmental effectiveness of the EU carbon border adjustment. . Energy Policy 161::112596
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Naegele H, Zaklan A. 2019.. Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93::125–47
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Nordhaus W. 2015.. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. . Am. Econ. Rev. 105:(4):1339–70
     [Google Scholar]
  121. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.). 2013.. Effective Carbon Prices. Paris:: OECD
     [Google Scholar]
  122. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.). 2021.. Effective Carbon Rates 2021: Pricing Carbon Emissions Through Taxes and Emissions Trading. Paris:: OECD
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Paltsev SV. 2001.. The Kyoto Protocol: regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage. . Energy J. 22:(4):53–79
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2015.. United Nations Treaty Series 3156:, Dec. 12
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Parry I, Black S, Roaf J. 2021a.. Proposal for an international carbon price floor among large emitters. Staff Clim. Note 2021/001 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Parry I, Dohlman P, Hillier C, Kaufman M, Kwak K, et al. 2021b.. Carbon pricing: What role for border carbon adjustments? Staff Clim. Note 2021/004 , Int. Monet. Fund, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Pauwelyn J. 2013.. Carbon leakage measures and border tax adjustments under WTO law. . In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, ed. G Van Calster, D Prévost , pp. 448–506 Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Pauwelyn J. 2020.. Trade related aspects of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. A legal assessment. . In Four Briefings on Trade-Related Aspects of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms. Strasbourg, Fr:.: Dir. Gen. Extern. Policies Union
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Ponssard JP, Walker N. 2008.. EU emissions trading and the cement sector: a spatial competition analysis. . Clim. Policy 8:(5):467–93
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Porter ME, van der Linde C. 1995.. Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. . J. Econ. Perspect. 9:(4):97–118
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Pottier A, Méjean A, Godard O, Hourcade JC. 2017.. A survey of global climate justice: from negotiation stances to moral stakes and back. . Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11:(1):1–53
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Ramseur J, Murrill B, Casey C. 2022.. Border carbon adjustments: background and recent developments. Rep. R47167 , Congr. Res. Serv., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Román M, Corsatea T, Amores AF, Neuwahl F, Velàzquez Afonso A, et al. 2019.. World Input–Output Database environmental accounts: update 2000–2016. Tech. Rep., Jt. Res. Cent., Eur. Comm., Brussels:
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Sandmo A. 2005.. Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sapir A, Horn H. 2020.. Political assessment of possible reactions of EU main trading partners to EU border carbon measures. . In Four Briefings on Trade-Related Aspects of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms. Strasbourg, Fr:.: Dir. Gen. Extern. Policies Union
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Sartor O. 2013.. Carbon leakage in the primary aluminium sector: What evidence after 6.5 years of the EU ETS? Work. Pap. 13-106 , US Assoc. Energy Econ., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Sato M. 2014.. Embodied carbon in trade: a survey of the empirical literature. . J. Econ. Surv. 28:(5):831–61
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Sato M, Dechezleprêtre A. 2015.. Asymmetric industrial energy prices and international trade. . Energy Econ. 52:(Suppl. 1):S130–41
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Shapiro JS. 2016.. Trade costs, CO2, and the environment. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8:(4):220–54
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Sinn HW. 2008.. Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. . Int. Tax Public Finance 15:(4):360–94
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Stadler K, Wood R, Bulavskaya T, Södersten CJ, Simas M, et al. 2018.. EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input–output tables. . J. Ind. Ecol. 22:(3):502–15
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Stiglitz JE. 2006.. A new agenda for global warming. . In The Economists' Voice, ed. JE Stiglitz, AS Edlin, JB DeLong , pp. 22–27 New York:: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Timilsina GR. 2018.. Where is the carbon tax after thirty years of research? Policy Res. Work. Pap. 8493, World Bank, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Timmer MP, Los B, Stehrer R, de Vries GJ. 2016.. An anatomy of the global trade slowdown based on the WIOD 2016 release. Res. Memo. 162 , Groningen Growth Dev. Cent., Univ. Groningen, Groningen, Neth:
     [Google Scholar]
  145. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1992.. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. S. Treaty Doc. . 10238 May 9
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Van den Bijgaart I. 2017.. The unilateral implementation of a sustainable growth path with directed technical change. . Eur. Econ. Rev. 91::305–27
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Verde S. 2020.. The impact of the EU emissions trading system on competitiveness and carbon leakage: the econometric evidence. . J. Econ. Surv. 34:(2):320–43
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Weisbach D, Kortum SS, Wang M, Yao Y. 2022.. Trade, leakage, and the design of a carbon tax. NBER Work. Pap. 30244
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Weyant JP, ed. 1999.. The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: a multi-model evaluation. . Energy J. 20:(Spec. Issue
     [Google Scholar]
  150. World Bank. 2012.. Inclusive green growth: the pathway to sustainable development. Tech. Rep., World Bank, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  151. World Bank. 2022.. State and trends of carbon pricing 2022. Tech. Rep., World Bank, Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  152. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1994a.. Annex 1-A: Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. . In Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, pp. 229–63 Geneva:: WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  153. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1994b.. Article XX: general exceptions. . In General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. Geneva:: WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/gatt1994_art20_jur.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  154. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1994c.. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Geneva:: WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/agrmntseries1_wto_e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  155. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1994d.. Preamble. . In General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. Geneva:: WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  156. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1996.. United States—standards for reformulated and conventional gasoline. Report of the panel. Doc. WT/DS2/R, WTO, Geneva:. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/2R.pdf&Open=True
    [Google Scholar]
  157. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 1998.. United States—import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products. Report of the appellate body. Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, WTO, Geneva:. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/58ABR.pdf&Open=True
    [Google Scholar]
  158. WTO (World Trade Organ.). 2022.. Decarbonization standards and the iron and steel sector: How can the WTO support greater coherence? Inf. Brief 7 , WTO, Geneva:
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Wu L, Zhou Y, Qian H. 2022.. Global actions under the Paris Agreement: tracing the carbon leakage flow and pursuing countermeasures. . Energy Econ. 106::105804
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040
Loading
The Economics of Border Carbon Adjustment: Rationale and Impacts of Compensating for Carbon at the Border
Annual Review of Economics 15, 389 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-034040
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error