Journal of Korea Trade

한국무역학회 (Korea Trade Research Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Risk of Carbon Leakage and Border Carbon Adjustments under the Korean Emissions Trading Scheme

  • 투고 : 2021.09.23
  • 심사 : 2022.04.01
  • 발행 : 2022.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose - This paper examines South Korea's potential status as a carbon leakage country, and the level of risk posed by the Korean emissions trading scheme (ETS) for Korean industries. The economic effects of border carbon adjustments (BCAs) to protect energy-intensive Korean industries in the process of achieving the carbon reduction target by 2030 through the Korean ETS are also analyzed. Design/methodology - First, using the Korean Input-Output (IO) table, this paper calculates the balance of emissions embodied in trade (BEET) and the pollution terms of trade (PTT) to determine Korean industries' carbon leakage status. Analyses of the risk level posed by carbon reduction policy implementation in international trade are conducted for some sectors by applying the EU criteria. Second, using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, three BCA scenarios, exemption regulations (EXE), reimbursement (REB), and tariff reduction (TAR) to protect the energy-intensive industries under the Korean ETS are addressed. Compared to the baseline scenario of achieving carbon reduction targets by 2030, the effects of BCAs on welfare, carbon leakage, outputs, and trading are analyzed. Findings - As Korea's industrial structure has been transitioning from a carbon importing to a carbon leaking country. The results indicate that some industrial sectors could face the risk of losing international competitiveness due to the Korean ETS. South Korea's industries are basically exposed to risk of carbon leakage because most industries have a trade intensity higher than 30%. This could be interpreted as disproving vulnerability to carbon leakage. Although the petroleum and coal sector is not in carbon leakage, according to BEET and PTT, the Korean ETS exposes this sector to a high risk of carbon leakage. Non-metallic minerals and iron and steel sectors are also exposed to a high risk of carbon leakage due to the increased burden of carbon reduction costs embodied in the Korean ETS, despite relatively low levels of trade intensity. BCAs are demonstrated to have an influential role in protecting energy-intensive industries while achieving the carbon reduction target by 2030. The EXE scenario has the greatest impact on mitigation of welfare losses and carbon leakage, and the TAF scenario causes a disturbance in the international trade market because of the pricing adjustment system. In reality, the EXE scenario, which implies completely exempting energy-intensive industries, could be difficult to implement due to various practical constraints, such as equity and reduction targets and other industries; therefore, the REB scenario presents the most realistic approach and appears to have an effect that could compensate for the burden of economic activities and emissions regulations in these industries. Originality/value - This paper confirms the vulnerability of the Korean industrial the risk of carbon leakage, demonstrating that some industrial sectors could be exposed to losing international competitiveness by implementing carbon reduction policies such as the Korean ETS. The contribution of this paper is the identification of proposed approaches to protect Korean industries in the process of achieving the 2030 reduction target by analyzing the effects of BCA scenarios using a CGE model.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahmad, N. and A. Wyckoff (2003), Carbon Dioxide Emissions Embodied in International Trade of Goods, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2003/15.
  2. Babiker, Mustafa H. (2005), "Climate Change Policy, Market Structure, and Carbon Leakage", Journal of International Economics, 65(2), 421-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.01.003
  3. Babiker, Mustafa H., and Thomas F. Rutherford (2005), "The Economic Effects of Border Measures in Subglobal Climate Agreements", The Energy Journal, 26(4), 99-125.
  4. Barker, T., S. Junankar, H. Pollitt and P. Summerton (2009), "The Effects of Environmental Tax Reform on International Competitiveness in the European Union: Modelling with E3ME". In M.S. Andersen and P. Ekins (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Brewer, T. L. (2004), "The WTO and the Kyoto Protocol: interaction issues", Climate Policy, 4(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2004.9685506
  6. Bohringer, C., E. J. Balistreri and T. F. Rutherford (2012), "The Role of Border Carbon Adjustment in Unilateral Climate Policy: Overview of an Energy Modeling Forum Study (EMF 29)", Energy Economics, 34, S97-S110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003
  7. Bohringer, C., J. C. Carbone and T. F. Rutherford (2018), "Embodied Carbon Tariffs", The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 120(1), 183-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12211
  8. Bohringer, C., C. Fischer and K. E. Rosendahl (2010), "The Global Effects of Subglobal Climate Policies", The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(2), 1-35.
  9. Bohringer, C., T. F. Rutherford and E. J. Balistreri (2012), The Role of Border Carbon Adjustment in Unilateral Climate Policy: Insights from a Model-Comparison Study, Discussion Paper, 2012-54, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center.
  10. Bohringer, C., T. F. Rutherford and W. Wiegard (2003), Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: Opening a Black Box, ZEW Discussion Papers 03-56, ZEW-Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  11. Carbon, J. and Rivers, N. (2017), "The impacts of unilateral climate policy on competitiveness: Evidence from computable general equilibrium models", Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(1), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew025
  12. Condon, M. and A. Ignaciuk (2013), Border Carbon Adjustment and International Trade: A Literature Review, OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers, NO. 2013/06, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  13. Davis, S. J. and K. Caldeira (2010), "Consumption-based Acounting of CO2 Emissions", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(12), 5687-5692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906974107
  14. Dechezlepretre, A. and Sato, M. (2012), "The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness", Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013
  15. Dellink, R., G. Briner and C. Clapp (2011), "The Copenhagen Accord/Cancun Agreements Emission Pledges for 2020: Exploring Economic and Environmental Impacts", Climate Change Economics, 02(01), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007811000206
  16. Ecorys (2013), Carbon Leakage Evidence Project: Factsheets for Selected Sectors, Rotterdam: Author.
  17. Ekins, P. (2012), "Sustainable Growth Revisited: Technology, Economics and Policy", Mineral Economics, 24, 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-011-0013-6
  18. Ellis, J., D. Nachtigall and F. Venmans (2020), "Carbon pricing and competitiveness: are they at odds?", Climate Policy, 20(9), 1070-1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1805291
  19. Evans S., M. A. Mehling, R. A. Ritz and R. Sammon (2021), "Border carbon adjustments and industrial competitiveness in a European Green Deal", Climate Policy, 21(3), 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1856637
  20. Fischer, C. and A. K. Fox (2012), "Comparing Policies to Combat Emissions Leakage: Border Carbon Adjustments versus Rebates", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 64(2), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.01.005
  21. Fischer, C., R. Morgenstern and N. Richardson (2015), "Carbon taxes and energy-intensive trade-exposed industries", Implementing A US Carbon Tax, 159-177.
  22. Gerlagh, R. and O. Kuik (2007), Carbon Leakage with International Technology Spillovers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) Working Paper NO. 33.2007.
  23. He, J. and J. Fu (2014), "Carbon Leakage in China's Manufacturing Trade: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Carbon Embodied in Trade", The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 23(3), 329-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2012.713389
  24. Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.
  25. Jaffe, A. B., S. R. Peterson and P. R. Portney (1995), "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What does the Evidence Tell Us?", Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 132-163.
  26. Jakob, M., J. C. Steckel and O. Edenhofer (2014), "Consumption- versus Production-based Emission Policies", Annual Review of Resource Economies, 6(1), 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012342
  27. Joure, J., G. Houssein and S. Monjon (2013), Border Carbon Adjustment in Europe and Trade Retaliation: What would be the Cost for the European Union?, CEPII Working Paper 2013-34, CEPII.
  28. Keen, M., I. Parry and J. Roaf (2021), Border Carbon Adjustments: Rationale, Design and Impact, IMF Working Paper(WP/21/239)
  29. Kejun, J., A. Cosbey and D. Murphy (2008, June 18-20), "Embodied Carbon in Traded Goods", Trade and Climate Change Seminar, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  30. Kuik, O., and M. Hofkes (2010), "Border Adjustment for European Emissions Trading: Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage", Energy Policy, 38(4), 1741-1748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.048
  31. Marcu, A., C. Egenhofer, S. Roth and W. Stoefs (2013), Carbon Leakage: An Overview, CEPS Special Reports, No. 79/December 2013.
  32. Marcu, A., C. Egenhofer, S. Roth and W. Stoefs (2014), Carbon Leakage: Options for the EU, CEPS Special Reports, No.83/March 2014.
  33. Marcu, A., C. Egenhofer, S. Roth and W. Stoefs (2016), "The impact of the European Union emissions trading scheme on regulated firms: What is the evidence after ten years?", Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rev016
  34. Markusen, J. R. (1975), "International Externalities and Optimal Tax Structures", Journal of International Economics, 5(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(75)90025-2
  35. Martin, R., M. Muuls, L. B. de Preux and U. Wagner (2014), "Industry Compensation under Relocation Risk: A firm-level Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme", American Economic Review, 104(8), 2482-2508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.8.2482
  36. Matthes, F. C. (2008), "What Makes a Sector with Significant Cost Increase Subject to Leakage?". In K. Neuhoff and F. C. Matthes (Eds.), The Role of Auctions for Emissions Trading, Cambridge: Climate Strategies, 29-34.
  37. Matthes, F. C., and S. Monjon (2008), "Free Allowance Allocation to Tackle Leakage". In K. Neuhoff and F. C. Matthes (Eds.), The Role of Auctions for Emissions Trading, Cambridge: Climate Strategies, 41-48.
  38. Mattoo, A., A. Subramanian, D. Van der Mensbrugghe and J. He (2009), Reconciling Climate Change and Trade Policy, Center for Global Development Working Paper 189.
  39. Sato, M. (2014), "Embodied Carbon in Trade: a Survey of the Empirical Literature", Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(5), 831-861. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12027
  40. Peters, G. P., and E. G. Hertwich (2008), "CO2 Embodied in International Trade with Implications for Global Climate Policy", Environmental Science &Technology, 42(5), 1401-1407. https://doi.org/10.1021/es072023k
  41. Quirion, P., and S. Monjon (2011), "A Border Adjustment for the EU ETS: Reconciling WTO Rules and Capacity to Tackle Carbon Leakage", Climate Policy, 11(5), 1212-1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.601907
  42. Reinaud, J. (2008), Issues behind Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage-Focus on Heavy Industry, International Energy Agency (IEA) Information Paper, IEA/OECD Paris.
  43. Reinaud, J. (2009), Trade, Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage: Challenges and Opportunities, Energy, Environment and Development Programme Paper: 09/01, Chatham House.
  44. Roy, J., D. Ghosh and S. Ghosh (2013), Leakage Risks in South Korea: Potential Impacts on Global Emissions, Climate Strategies.
  45. Zaklan, A. and B. Bauer (2015), Europe's Mechanism for Countering the Risk of Carbon Leakage, DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 72, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  46. Zhang, Z. (2012), Competitiveness and Leakage Concerns and Border Carbon Adjustments, FEEM Working Paper NO.80.
  47. Zhou, X. and S. Kojima (2010), Carbon Emissions Embodied in International Trade: An Assessment Based on the Multi-region Input-output Model, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).