Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 150, Issue 1–2, pp 43–56 | Cite as

Coal taxes as supply-side climate policy: a rationale for major exporters?

  • Philipp M. Richter
  • Roman MendelevitchEmail author
  • Frank Jotzo
Article

Abstract

The shift away from coal is at the heart of the global low-carbon transition. Can governments of coal-producing countries help facilitate this transition and benefit from it? This paper analyses the case for coal taxes as supply-side climate policy implemented by large coal exporting countries. Coal taxes can reduce global carbon dioxide emissions and benefit coal-rich countries through improved terms-of-trade and tax revenue. We employ a multi-period equilibrium model of the international steam coal market to study a tax on steam coal levied by Australia alone, by a coalition of major exporting countries, by all exporters, and by all producers. A unilateral export tax has little impact on global emissions and global coal prices as other countries compensate for reduced export volumes from the taxing country. By contrast, a tax jointly levied by a coalition of major coal exporters would significantly reduce global emissions from steam coal and leave them with a net sector level welfare gain, approximated by the sum of producer surplus, consumer surplus, and tax revenue. Production taxes consistently yield higher tax revenues and have greater effects on global coal consumption with smaller rates of carbon leakages. Questions remain whether coal taxes by major suppliers would be politically feasible, even if they could yield economic benefits.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Franziska Holz, Christian von Hirschhausen, Hanna Brauers, Steven A. Gabriel, Clément Haftendorn, Daniel Huppmann, Kai Lessmann, Claudia Kemfert, and Sauleh Siddiqui for helpful discussions and feedback as well as the participants at the Annual Meeting of the German Economic Association in Münster, the EAERE Annual Conference in Helsinki, the IAEE conferences in Düsseldorf and Rome, and at the Berlin Research Seminar on Environment, Resource and Climate Economics. We also thank three anonymous referees for their critical reading and constructive suggestions and guest editors Michael Lazarus and Harro van Asselt for their comments. Philipp M. Richter and Roman Mendelevitch gratefully acknowledge financial support from the DIW Graduate Center as well as funding by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the research framework “Economics of Climate Change” in grant no. 01LA1135B. Frank Jotzo acknowledges funding from the Coal Transitions project led by IDDRI and Climate Strategies and funded by the KR Foundation.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2163_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.6 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1641 kb)

References

  1. Bard JF, Plummer J, Sourie JC (2000) A bilevel programming approach to determining tax credits for biofuel production. Eur J Oper Res 120(1):30–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00373-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhringer C, Rosendahl KE, Schneider J (2014) Unilateral climate policy: can OPEC resolve the leakage problem? Energy J 35(4):79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brander JA, Spencer BJ (1985) Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. J Int Econ 18(1–2):83–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(85)90006-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burniaux J-M, Oliveira Martins J (2012) Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Economic Theory 49(2):473–495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-010-0598-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier P, Venables AJ (2014) Closing coal: economic and moral incentives. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 30(3):492–512.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gru024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins K, Mendelevitch R (2015) Leaving coal unburned: options for demand-side and supply-side policies. 87. DIW Roundup. German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Berlin. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.526889.de/diw_roundup_91_en.pdf
  7. Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Australia’s future tax system. Report to the treasurer. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of TreasuryGoogle Scholar
  8. DEE (2016) Australias emissions projections 2016. Australian Government, Department of Environment and Energy, CamberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenack K, Edenhofer O, Kalkuhl M (2012) Resource rents: the effects of energy taxes and quantity instruments for climate protection. Energy Policy, Special Section: Frontiers of Sustainability 48:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fæhn T, Hagem C, Lindholt L, Mæland S, Rosendahl E (2017) Climate policies in a fossil fuel producing country—demand versus supply side policies. Energy J 38(1):77–102.  https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.1.tfae CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabriel SA, Leuthold FU (2010) Solving discretely-constrained MPEC problems with applications in electric power markets. Energy Econ 32(1):3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haftendorn C, Holz F, von Hirschhausen C (2012a) The end of cheap coal? A techno-economic analysis until 2030 using the COALMOD-World model. Fuel 102(December):305–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haftendorn C, Kemfert C, Holz F (2012b) What about coal? Interactions between climate policies and the global steam coal market until 2030. Energy Policy 48:274–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harstad B (2012) Buy coal! A case for supply-side environmental policy. J Polit Econ 120(1):77–115.  https://doi.org/10.1086/665405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoel M (2013) Supply side climate policy and the green paradox. 4094. CESifo Working Paper Series. CESifo Group Munich, MunichGoogle Scholar
  16. Holz F, Haftendorn C, Mendelevitch R, von Hirschhausen C (2015) The COALMOD-world model: coal markets until 2030. In: Morse RK, Thurber MC (eds) The global coal market - supplying the major fuel for emerging economies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 411–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holz F, Haftendorn C, Mendelevitch R, von Hirschhausen C (2016) DIW Berlin: a model of the international Steam Coal Market (COALMOD-World). DIW Data Documentation 85. DIW Berlin, Berlin. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.546364.de/diw_datadoc_2016-085.pdf
  18. IEA/OECD (2012a) World energy outlook 2012. World energy outlook. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2012-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IEA/OECD (2012b) Coal information 2012. Coal information. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/coal-2012-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IEA/OECD (2013) Coal information 2013. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/coal-2013-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IEA/OECD (2015) World energy outlook 2015. World energy outlook. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2015-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IEA/OECD (2016a) World energy outlook 2016. World energy outlook. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2016-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IEA/OECD (2016b) Coal information 2016. Coal information. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/coal-information-2016_coal-2016-en
  24. IEA/OECD (2016c) Medium-term coal market report 2016. International Energy Agency, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.Oecd-Ilibrary.Org/Content/Book/Mtrcoal-2016-En
  25. Johansson DJA, Azar C, Lindgren K, Persson TA (2009) OPEC strategies and oil rent in a climate conscious world. Energy J 30(3):23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jotzo F, Mazouz S (2015) Brown coal exit: a market mechanism for regulated closure of highly emissions intensive power stations. Economic Analysis and Policy 48:71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2015.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalkuhl M, Brecha RJ (2013) The carbon rent economics of climate policy. Energy Econ 39:89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolstad CD, Abbey DS (1984) The effect of market conduct on international steam coal trade. Eur Econ Rev 24(1):39–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(84)90012-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolstad CD, Wolak FA Jr (1985) Strategy and market structure in western coal taxation. Rev Econ Stat 67(2):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Labbé M, Marcotte P, Savard G (1998) A bilevel model of taxation and its application to optimal highway pricing. Manag Sci 44(12):1608–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazarus M, Erickson P, Tempest K (2015) Supply-side climate policy: the road less taken. Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper, no. SEI-WP-2015-13 (October):1–24Google Scholar
  32. Liski M, Tahvonen O (2004) Can carbon tax eat OPEC’s rents? J Environ Econ Manag 47(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00052-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin A (2014) Commodity exports and transboundary atmospheric impacts: regulating coal in an era of climate change. Environmental Politics 23(4):590–609.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.891788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matar W, Murphy F, Pierru A, Rioux B (2015) Lowering Saudi Arabia’s fuel consumption and energy system costs without increasing end consumer prices. Energy Econ 49:558–569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517(7533):187–190.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458(7242):1158–1162.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paulus M, Trüby J (2011) Coal lumps vs. electrons: how do Chinese bulk energy transport decisions affect the global steam coal market? Energy Econ 33(6):1127–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogner H-H, Aguilera RF, Archer C, Bertani R, Bhattacharya SC, Dusseault MB, Gagnon L et al (2012) Energy resources and potentials. In: Global energy assessment—toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press/International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Cambridge, pp 423–512 www.globalenergyassessment.org Google Scholar
  39. Scaparra MP, Church RL (2008) A bilevel mixed-integer program for critical infrastructure protection planning. Comput Oper Res 35(6):1905–1923.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siddiqui S (2011) Solving two-level optimization problems with applications to robust design and energy markets. Dissertation at University of Maryland. College Park. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/12255
  41. Siddiqui S, Gabriel SA (2013) An SOS1-based approach for solving MPECs with a natural gas market application. Networks and Spatial Economics 13(2):205–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-012-9178-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sinn H-W (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Financ 15(4):360–394.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-008-9082-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steckel JC, Edenhofer O, Jakob M (2015) Drivers for the renaissance of coal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(29):E3775–E3781.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422722112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trüby J (2013) Strategic behaviour in international metallurgical coal markets. Energy Econ 36:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trüby J, Paulus M (2012) Market structure scenarios in international steam coal trade. Energy J 33(3):91–123.  https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.33.3.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Resource Economics GroupHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Crawford School of Public PolicyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations