Alternative Tax Instruments for CO2 Emission Reduction and Effects of Revenue Recycling Schemes
This study examines the roles of revenue recycling schemes for the selection of alternative tax instruments (i.e., carbon-, sulphur-, energy- and output-tax) to reduce CO, emissions to a specified level in Thailand. A static, single period, multi-sectoral computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Thai economy has been developed for this purpose. This study finds that the selection of a tax instrument to reduce CO, emissions would be significantly influenced by the scheme to recycle the tax revenue to the economy. If the tax revenue is recycled to finance cuts in the existing labour or indirect tax rates, carbon tax would be more efficient than the sulphur-, energy- and output-taxes to reduce CO2 emissions. On the other hand, if the tax revenue is recycled to households through a lump-sum transfer, sulphur and carbon taxes would be more efficient than energy and output taxes. The ranking between the sulphur and carbon taxes under the lump sum transfer scheme depends on substitution possibility of fossil fuels. Sulphur tax is found superior over carbon tax at the higher substitution possibility between fossil fuels; the reverse is found true at the lower substitution possibility. In all schemes of revenue recycling considered, the output tax is found to be the most costly (i.e., in welfare terms) despite the fact that it generates two to three times higher revenue than the other tax instruments.
Rights for Authors
As further described in our submission agreement (the Submission Agreement), in consideration for publication of the article, the authors assign to Energy Studies Review all copyright in the article, subject to the expansive personal--use exceptions described below.
Attribution and Usage Policies
Reproduction, posting, transmission or other distribution or use of the article or any material therein, in any medium as permitted by a personal-use exemption or by written agreement of Energy Studies Review, requires credit to Energy Studies Review as copyright holder (e.g., Energy Studies Review © 2014).
The following uses are always permitted to the author(s) and do not require further permission from DigitalCommons@McMaster provided the author does not alter the format or content of the articles, including the copyright notification:
- Storage and back-up of the article on the author's computer(s) and digital media (e.g., diskettes, back-up servers, Zip disks, etc.), provided that the article stored on these computers and media is not readily accessible by persons other than the author(s);
- Posting of the article on the author(s) personal website, provided that the website is non-commercial;
- Posting of the article on the internet as part of a non-commercial open access institutional repository or other non-commercial open access publication site affiliated with the author(s)'s place of employment (e.g., a Phrenology professor at the University of Southern North Dakota can have her article appear in the University of Southern North Dakota's Department of Phrenology online publication series); and
- Posting of the article on a non-commercial course website for a course being taught by the author at the university or college employing the author.
People seeking an exception, or who have questions about use, should contact the editors.