| 摘要 | 1. Research Purpose
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Currently, post-2012 climate negotiation is underway in order to formulate climate regime after 2012. Korean government declared 'low carbon green growth' as a new development vision in 2008. The government also announced its intention to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from BAU (business as usual) by 2020. Many times, it was debated whether limitation of emissions and economic growth is compatible.
This study, taking a long term view, analyzes that it is possible to reduce carbon dioxides emissions while maintaining economic growth through government policy focusing on carbon pricing and technology development. Through empirical analysis, this study aims to analyze and develop strategies for low carbon and green growth in the energy sector.
2. Summary
For our analysis, firstly, we reviewed theoretical background on induced technological change (ITC). Secondly, we assessed green growth policies and strategies from other developed countries including the US, Japan, and the UK. We mainly focused on emissions trading system. Thirdly, we reviewed R&D policies for these countries. Fourthly, to perform the analysis, we developed dynamic CGE (computable general equilibrium) model. Following the first, and second year studies, this model incorporates theories of ITC. The strength of this CGE model is on its capability to endogenize the technological change enabled by R&D investment. Then, using this model, we analyze seven policy scenarios. A main focus of the model analysis is to assess GDP effects of seven policy scenarios and other macro economic variables.
According to scenario 1, which is a reference scenario where green technology is not implemented, reducing emissions by 30% from BAU by 2020 and 50% by 2050 will incur GDP loss. The GDP loss will increase from 2.39% in 2020, to 3.46% in 2030, 4.66% in 2040 and 5.85% by 2050. Scenario 1 clearly shows that emissions reduction and economic growth conflict without the role of green technology.
In scenario 2 where green technology is induced from the implementation of carbon pricing system, GDP loss from emissions reduction is alleviated due to green technology. GDP losses in scenario 2 are 1.45% in 2020, 2.69% in 2030, 2.96% in 2040, and 0.56% in 2050. Due to this, GDP increase effects from renewable technology will be 0.94%p in 2020 and 5.29%p in 2050.
When scenario 4(consumption tax recycling), 5(labor income tax recycling), and 6(corporate income tax recycling) are compared, policy effects are different according to the ways of recycling revenue from emissions trading system or carbon tax. If carbon tax revenue were to be recycled, corporate income tax recycling will improve GDP the most. Income tax recycling and consumption tax recycling followed behind. In the case of recycling carbon tax revenue into consumption tax, GDP loss is 2.40% per annum by 2050. However, if carbon tax revenue is recycled into labor income tax and corporate income tax, annual GDP loss becomes less with 1.04% and 0.39% respectively.
The main focus of the research is that emission reduction and GDP growth can both be achieved if the government decides an appropriate revenue recycling schemes. If the revenue from carbon pricing system is recycled properly, current tax distortion is alleviated, thus, offsetting GDP loss from emission reduction. In this case, double dividend effect could be obtained.
A change in GDP, which occurs when carbon tax revenue is used as R&D investment, shows an important result. In this case, GDP loss is 1.33% in 2020, 1.52% in 2030, and 0.62% in 2040. Then, from 2043, GDP will begin to increase, reaching 3.44% of increase in 2050. This implies that emission reduction and economic growth can both be achieved.
3. Research Results and Policy Suggestions
This study, taking a long term view, analyzes ways to limit emissions and increase national GDP at the same time. Our analysis indicates that it is possible to attain low carbon green growth by relevant choice of government policies and strategies. The foremost strategy is to establish carbon pricing system in our markets. Carbon pricing can be established through either emissions trading system or carbon tax. Government can get revenues either from emissions trading system or carbon tax.
Government revenues can be used in many ways. The most effective way for low carbon green growth is to use revenues on R&D investment on green technology such as renewable energy technology or green cars. Our analysis shows that R&D investment could offset GDP losses by 92 percent on average from 2007 to 2050, which was caused by 30 percent GHG reduction in 2020 compared to BAU emissions. With R&D investment, GDP began to grow from year 2043, contrasting GDP loss until that time. Similarly, GDP enhancement effects can be seen with carbon tax revenue recycled to reduce 1) corporate income tax, 2) labor income tax, 3) consumption tax in this order. Revenue recycle into consumption tax could offset GDP losses by 43 percent on average from 2007 to 2050. The positive impact on GDP will increase if more green technologies are introduced.
A strategy for green growth, linked with climate change responses in energy sector, should be drawn from mid to long-term perspective. Carbon pricing system is suggested as a core policy measure of green growth. Carbon pricing can be established through either emissions trading system or carbon tax. Carbon pricing system improves production by inducing green technology, towing emission reduction and GDP growth.
Schemes needed to achieve economic growth through carbon pricing system are emissions trading system and carbon tax. By using such schemes, carbon price is formed in the market. When carbon price is set, green growth can be achieved through the market forces. Emissions trading system and carbon tax have features of their own, which requires further assessment, but fundamentally, they can be utilized complementarily.
If carbon tax is implemented and government revenue is used for R&D support, then technology advancement will take place, which will result in endogenous growth, thus, allowing both emission reduction and economic growth to take place at the same time. Therefore, government revenue should not be recycled as general budget rather be used in R&D for green technology investment. This is because production increase from technology advancement will result in greater increase of GDP over time. |
