Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 2545–2563 | Cite as

Environmental taxation for reducing greenhouse gases emissions in Chile: an input–output analysis

  • Cristian MardonesEmail author
  • Tamara Muñoz


This study uses an environmental extension of the Leontief price model to analyse various tax rates on the carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions that are generated by the most polluting sectors of the Chilean economy. By using this methodology, it is possible to obtain a counterfactual scenario for the prices, levels of production and emissions of each economic sector, as well as, for tax collection, consumer spending and the consumer price index. This analysis is important because Chile is internationally committed to reducing its emissions by 30% by 2030. According to the results, to meet the target CO2 emissions only using tax policies, tax should be approximately 20 times higher than their current levels in the electricity sector. Alternatively, a lower tax of US $30/ton of CO2 and other GHGs applied to all sectors of the economy could reduce CO2 and other GHGs emissions by up to 25.7% with less of a negative impact on the economy.


Leontief price model Environmental taxes CO2 GHGs 


  1. Alcántara, V., & Padilla, E. (2008). Input–output subsystems and pollution: An application to the service sector and CO2 emissions in Spain. Ecological Economics, 68, 905–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew, R., & Forgie, V. (2008). A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 68, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, J., Bakshi, B., & Haab, T. (2010). Effects of a carbon price in the U.S. on economic sectors, resource use, and emissions: An input–output approach. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3527–3536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, J., Bakshi, B., Hubacek, K., & Nader, J. (2016). A sequential input–output framework to analyze the economic and environmental implications of energy policies: Gas taxes and fuel subsidies. Applied Energy, 184(15), 830–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dessus, S., & O’Connor, D. (2003). Climate policy without tears CGE-based ancillary benefits estimates for Chile. Environmental & Resource Economics, 25(3), 287–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EPA. (2014). Emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories.
  7. FAO. (2014). Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks. FAO Statistics Division. Working Paper Series ESS/14-02.Google Scholar
  8. Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Rozenberg, J., Narloch, U., & Kerr, T. (2015). Decarbonizing development: Three steps to a zero-carbon future. Overview booklet. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreira, J., Barata, E., Nogueira, P., & Cruz, L. (2014). Economic, social, energy and environmental assessment of inter-municipality commuting: The case of Portugal. Energy Policy, 66, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallardo, A., & Mardones, C. (2013). Environmentally extended social accounting matrix for Chile. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(4), 1099–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. García-Benavente, J. M. (2016). Impact of a carbon tax on the Chilean economy: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Energy Economics, 57, 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gemechu, E., Butnar, I., Llop, M., & Castells, F. (2014). Economic and environmental effects of the CO2 taxation: An input–output analysis for Spain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57, 751–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Government of Chile. (2015). Ministry of Environment. Intended nationally determined contribution of Chile towards the climate agreement of Paris 2015.
  14. Limmeechokchai, B., & Suksuntornsiri, P. (2007). Embedded energy and total greenhouse gas emissions in final consumptions within Thailand. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Llop, M. (2008). Economic impact of alternative water policy scenarios in the Spanish production system: An input–output analysis. Ecological Economics, 68, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Llop, M., & Manresa, A. (2004). Influencia de los precios de los factores y de las importaciones en la economía catalana (1994). Investigaciones Regionales, 4, 115–129.Google Scholar
  17. Llop, M., & Pié, L. (2008). Input–output analysis of alternative policies implemented on the energy activities: An application for Catalonia. Energy Policy, 36, 1642–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manresa, A., Polo, C., & Sancho, F. (1988). Una Evaluación de los Efectos del IVA Mediante un Modelo de Producción y Gasto de Coeficientes Fijos. Revista Española de Economía, 5, 45–64.Google Scholar
  19. Mardones, C., & Flores, B. (2016). Evaluation of a CO2 tax in Chile: Emissions reduction or design problems? Latin American Research Review, 52(2) (in press).Google Scholar
  20. McKean, J., & Taylor, G. (1991). Sensitivity of the Pakistan economy to changes in import prices and profits, taxes or subsidies. Economics Systems Research, 3, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ministry of Agriculture. (2010). Complements and updating of the greenhouse gases inventory (GHG) for Chile in the sectors of agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry, and anthropogenic waste. Final report prepared by Agricultural Research Institute INIA, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  22. Muñoz, T., & Mardones, C. (2016). Simulation of a CO2e tax to mitigate impacts from Chilean agricultural and livestock sectors on climate change. Agrociencia, 50(3), 271–285.Google Scholar
  23. National Institute of Statistics. (2014). Livestock production. Period 2008–2013 and first semester 2014.
  24. Peters, G., & Hertwich, E. (2007). CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 1401–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodriguez-Serrano, I., Caldés, N., de la Rua, C., Lechón, Y., & Garrido, A. (2016). Socioeconomic, environmental and social impacts of a concentrated solar power energy project in Northern Chile. Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability, 1, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rozenberg, J., Vogt-Schilb, A., & Hallegatte, S. (2014). Transition to clean capital, irreversible investment and stranded assets. Policy research working paper 6859. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. United Nations Convention Framework on Climate Change. (2014).
  28. Varela-Vázquez, P., & Sánchez-Carreira, M. (2015). Socioeconomic impact of wind energy on peripheral regions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 982–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vera, S., & Sauma, E. (2015). 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, 88, 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weber, C., Peters, G., Guan, D., & Hubacek, K. (2008). The contribution of Chinese exports to climate change. Energy Policy, 36, 3572–3577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. World Bank. (2016). State and trends of carbon pricing 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  32. World Bank, IFC, & MIGA. (2016). World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2016–2020. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of ConcepciónConcepciónChile

Personalised recommendations