This study aims to analyze the behavior of Chilean industrial sources when a CO2 tax, an emissions trading system with a total reduction target of 30%, or both instruments simultaneously are applied. For the above, an optimization model is built that is then calibrated with firm -level data obtained from the Annual National Industrial Survey (ENIA). Specifically, the model assumes that industrial sources have the option of maintaining their original emissions, replacing their current fuels with less polluting ones to pay fewer taxes and/or trade of emissions in a carbon market. The results show that to reduce emissions by at least 30% a tax close to US $17.5/tCO2 could be applied with a total cost of US $106 million, but it would be better to apply an emissions trading system with a similar price because the total cost would be US $21.3 million. If both economic instruments are applied together, the total cost of reduction is higher than when the instruments are implemented independently. Thus, it is concluded that Chile could move from a CO2 tax to an emissions trading system in order to reduce the costs of its environmental regulation.
MarpaungCOPShrestaRM.Economy-wide CO2 emission reduction due to carbon tax in the power sector: a structural decomposition analysis. Int J Smart Grid Sustainable Energy Technol2019;
1: 14–19.
2.
AbdirahmanMMohdWSalehY, et al.
Harnessing flexibility potential of flexible carbon capture power plants for future low carbon power systems: review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2018;
81: 3101–3110.
3.
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Tercer Reporte del Estado del Medio Ambiente. Gobierno de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2017.
4.
IPCC. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change.
New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015.
5.
XuBLinB.Reducing carbon dioxide emissions in China’s manufacturing industry: a dynamic vector autoregression approach. J Clean Prod2016;
131: 594–606.
6.
GharaieMPanjeshahiHKimJ, et al.
Retrofit strategy for the site-wide mitigation of CO2 emissions in the process industries. Chem Eng Res Des2015;
94: 213–241.
7.
Liu S, Chevallier J and Zhu B. Self-scheduling of a power generating company: carbon tax considerations. Comput Oper Res 2016; 66: 384--392.
8.
Mardones C and Saavedra A. Comparison of economic instruments to reduce PM2.5 from industrial and residential sources. Energy Policy 2016; 98: 443--452.
9.
Alegría M, Mardones C and Jiménez J. Reduction of PM10 emissions under scenarios of regulation and availability of natural gas in the bio Bio Region, Chile. Energy and Environment 2013; 24: 1031--1041
10.
Zakeri A, Dehghanian F, Fahimnia B, et al. Carbon pricing versus emissions trading: a supply chain planning perspective. Int J Prod Econ 2015; 164: 197--205.
11.
World Bank. Climate change and development series: decarbonizing development. Washington, USA: World Bank, 2015.
12.
Loiseau E, Saikku L, Antikainen R, et al. Green economy and related concepts: an overview. J Clean Prod 2016; 139: 361–371.
13.
Goulder LH and Schein AR. Carbon taxes versus cap and trade: a critical review. Clim Change Econ 2013; 4: 1350010.
14.
Li W and Jia Z. Carbon tax, emission trading, or the mixed policy: which is the most effective strategy for climate change mitigation in China? Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 2017; 22: 973–992.
15.
Dissou Y and Karnizova L. Emissions cap or emissions tax? A multi-sector business cycle analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 2016; 79: 169–188.
16.
Kolstad C. Environmental economics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
17.
Delarue E and Van den Bergh K. Carbon mitigation in the electric power sector under cap-andtrade and renewables policies. Energy Policy 2016; 92: 34–44.
18.
Mardones C and Jiménez J. Alternatives for reducing fine particulate matter from industrial activities in concepci_on metropolitan area, Chile. Energy Environ 2015; 26: 445–456.
19.
Wang K, Wei Y and Huang Z. Potential gains from carbon emissions trading in China: a DEA based estimation on abatement cost saving. Omega 2016; 63: 48–59.
20.
Ellerman AD, Marcantonini C and Zaklan A. The European Union emissions trading system: ten years and counting. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2016; 10: 89–107.
21.
Branger F, Lecuyer O and Quirion P. The european union emissions trading scheme: should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater. Wires Clim Change 2015; 6: 9–16.
22.
Villoria-Saez P, Tam VW, del Río Merino M, et al. Effectiveness of greenhouse-gas emission trading schemes implementation: a review on legislations. J Clean Prod 2016; 127: 49–58.
23.
Eide J, Sisternes F, Herzog H, et al. CO2 emission standards and investment in carbon capture. Energy Econ 2014; 45: 53–65.
24.
Liu X, Wang C, Niu D, et al. An analysis of company choice preference to carbon tax policy in China. J Clean Prod 2015; 103: 393–400.
25.
Mathur A and Morris A. Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader U.S. Fiscal reform. Energy Policy 2014; 66: 326–334.
26.
Klenert D and Mattauch L. How to make a carbon tax reform progressive: the role of subsistence consumption. Econ Lett 2016; 138: 100–103.
27.
Tian X, Dai H, Geng Y, et al. The effects of carbon reduction on sectoral competitiveness in China: a case of shanghai. Appl Energy 2017; 197: 270–278.
28.
Mardones C and Flores B. Effectiveness of a CO2 tax on industrial sector. Energy Econ 2018; 71: 370–382.
29.
Mardones C and Cabello M. Effectiveness of local air pollution and GHG taxes: the case of Chilean industrial sources. Energy Econ 2019; 83: 491–500.
30.
Vera S and Sauma E. Does a carbon tax make sense in countries with still a high potential for energy efficiency? Comparison between the reducing-emissions effects of carbon tax and energy efficiency measures in the Chilean case. Energy 2015; 88: 478–488.
31.
Mardones C and Lipski M. A carbon tax on agriculture? A CGE analysis for Chile. Econ Syst Res 2020; 32: 262–277.
32.
García-Benavente J. Impact of a carbon tax on the Chilean economy: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Energy Econ 2016; 57: 106–127.
33.
Benavides C, Gonzales L, Diaz M, et al. The impact of a carbon tax on the Chilean electricity generation sector. Energies 2015; 8: 2674–2700.
34.
Mardones C and Baeza N. Economic and environmental effects of a CO2 tax in Latin American countries. Energy Policy 2018; 114: 262--273.
35.
Roman R, Cansino J and Ordóñez M. An assessment of the effects of the new Chilean carbon tax. In: Dejuán O, Lenzen M and Cadarso M (eds) Environmental and economic impacts of decarbonization input-output studies on the consequences of the 2015 Paris agreements. London: Routledge (Francis & Taylor Group), 2017, pp.370--395.
36.
Mardones C and Mũnoz TZ. Impuesto al CO2 en el sector electrico chileno: efectividad y efectos macroeconomicos. J Econ Chilena (the Chilean Economy) 2017; 20: 4--25.
37.
Mũnoz T and Mardones C. Simulation of a CO2e tax to mitigate impacts from Chilean agricultureand livestock sector on climate change. Agrociencia 2016; 50: 271--285.
38.
INE. Annual national industrial survey 2015. Chile: National Institute of Statistics, 2017.
39.
Ministry of the Environment. Third Report on the State of the Environment. Government of Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2017.
40.
Mardones C and Flores B. Evaluation of a CO2 tax in Chile: emissions reduction or design problems? Latin Am Res Rev 2017; 52(3): 334--343.
