Exhibition News
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Conventions
  • Trade Show Booth
  • Trade Show Display Rental
  • Trade Show Exhibitsa
  • Trade Show In Usa
  • Trade Show Stands
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Conventions
  • Trade Show Booth
  • Trade Show Display Rental
  • Trade Show Exhibitsa
  • Trade Show In Usa
  • Trade Show Stands
No Result
View All Result
Exhibition News
No Result
View All Result
Home Trade Show Stands

Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments

Exhibition News by Exhibition News
January 4, 2022
in Trade Show Stands
0 0
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


  • 1.

    Vrontisi, Z. et al. Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044039 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Pearce, D. The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ. J. 101, 938–948 (1991).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Weyant, J. Costs of reducing global carbon emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 7, 27–46 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (World Bank, 2020); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809

  • 5.

    Effective Carbon Rates 2021: Pricing Carbon Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading (OECD, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1787/0e8e24f5-en

  • 6.

    Hoel, M. Global environmental problems: the effects of unilateral actions taken by one country. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 20, 55–70 (1991).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Pezzey, J. Analysis of unilateral CO2 control in the European Community. Energy J. 13, 159–172 (1992).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Bohm, P. Incomplete international cooperation to reduce CO2 emissions: alternative policies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 24, 258–271 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Felder, S. & Rutherford, T. F. Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: the consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25, 162–176 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473–495 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Gerlagh, R. & Kuik, O. Spill or leak? Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers: a CGE analysis. Energy Econ. 45, 381–388 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Lockwood, B. & Whalley, J. Carbon-motivated border tax adjustments: old wine in green bottles? World Econ. 33, 810–819 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Markusen, J. International externalities and optimal tax structures. J. Int. Econ. 5, 15–29 (1975).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Hoel, M. Should a carbon tax be differentiated across sectors? J. Public Econ. 59, 17–32 (1996).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Keen, M. & Kotsogiannis, C. Coordinating climate and trade policies: Pareto efficiency and the role of border tax adjustments. J. Int. Econ. 94, 119–128 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (European Commission, 2021); https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_21_3666

  • 17.

    Shapiro, J. S. The environmental bias of trade policy. Q. J. Econ. 136, 831–886 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Pauwelyn, J. in Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO (eds Van Calster, G. & Prévost, D.) 448–506 (Edward Elgar, 2013).

  • 19.

    Holzer, K. Carbon-Related Border Adjustment and WTO Law (Edward Elgar, 2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Pauwelyn, J. & Kleimann, D. Trade Related Aspects of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Legal Assessment (European Parliament, 2020); https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/603502/EXPO_BRI(2020)603502_EN.pdf

  • 21.

    Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C. & Munnings, C. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13, 3–22 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Bierbrauer, F., Felbermayr, G., Ockenfels, A. Schmidt, K. M. & Südekum, J. A CO2 Border Adjustment as a Building Block of a Climate Club Kiel Policy Brief 151 (Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 2021).

  • 23.

    Ismer, R. & Neuhoff, K. Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur. J. Law Econ. 24, 137–164 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Fischer, C. & Fox, A. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64, 199–216 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Martin, R., Muûls, M., Preux, L. Bde & Wagner, U. J. Industry compensation under re-location risk: a firm-level analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 2482–2508 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E. L., McDougall, R. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. The GTAP data base: Version 10. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.21642/JGEA.040101AF (2019).

  • 27.

    Fowlie, M. L. & Reguant, M. Mitigating emissions leakage in incomplete carbon markets. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1086/716765 (2021).

  • 28.

    Welsch, H. Armington elasticities for energy policy modeling: evidence from four European countries. Energy Econ. 30, 2252–2264 (2008).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Fischer, C. & Fox, A. How trade sensitive are energy-intensive sectors? AEA Papers Proc. 108, 130–135 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Feenstra, R. C., Luck, P., Obstfeld, M. & Russ, K. N. In search of the Armington elasticity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 100, 135–150 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Yilmazkuday, H. Estimating the trade elasticity over time. Econ. Lett. 183, 108579 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Bajzik, J., Havranek, T., Irsova, Z. & Schwarz, J. Estimating the Armington elasticity: the importance of study design and publication bias. J. Int. Econ. 127, 103383 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Fowlie, M. L. & Reguant, M. Climate policy and trade: challenges in the measurement of leakage risk. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 124–129 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    Aichele, R. & Felbermayr, G. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63, 336–354 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Aichele, R. & Felbermayr, G. Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97, 104–115 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Branger, F., Quirion, P. & Chevallier, J. Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: much ado about nothing. Energy J. 37, 109–135 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 37.

    Healy, S., Schumacher, K. & Eichhammer, W. Analysis of carbon leakage under Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System: trading patterns in the cement and aluminium sectors. Energies 11, 1231 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Naegele, H. & Zaklan, A. Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93, 125–147 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Dechezleprêtre, A., Gennaioli, C., Martin, R., Muuls, M. & Stoerk, T. Searching for Carbon Leaks in Multinational Companies CEP Discussion Paper 1601 (Centre for Economic Performance, 2019).

  • 40.

    Venmans, F., Ellis, J. & Nachtigall, D. Carbon pricing and competitiveness: are they at odds? Clim. Pol. 20, 1070–1091 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Shoven, J. B. & Whalley, J. Applying General Equilibrium (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Dixon, P. B. & Jorgenson, D. W. Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling Vols 1A and 1B (Elsevier, 2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97–S110 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Condon, M. & Ignaciuk, A. Border Carbon Adjustment and International Trade: A Literature Review OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2013/06 (OECD, 2013).

  • 45.

    Branger, F. & Quirion, P. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99, 29–39 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Carbone, J. C. & Rivers, N. The impacts of unilateral climate policy on competitiveness: evidence from computable general equilibrium models. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 24–42 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Babiker, M. H. Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J. Int. Econ. 65, 421–445 (2005).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. Subglobal carbon policy and the competitive selection of heterogeneous firms. Energy Econ. 34, S190–S197 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Balistreri, E. J., Böhringer, C. & Rutherford, T. F. Carbon policy and the structure of global trade. World Econ. 41, 194–221 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. The global effects of subglobal climate policies. B. E. J. Economic Anal. Policy 10, 1–35 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Weitzel, M., Hübler, M. & Peterson, S. Fair, optimal or detrimental? Environmental vs. strategic use of border carbon adjustment. Energy Econ. 34, S198–S207 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Boeters, S. & Bollen, J. Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy. Energy Econ. 43, S181–S189 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318–339 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Demailly, D. & Quirion, P. CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Clim. Pol. 6, 93–113 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Ponssard, J. P. & Walker, N. EU emissions trading and the cement sector: a spatial competition analysis. Clim. Pol. 8, 467–493 (2008).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 56.

    Larch, M. & Wanner, J. Carbon tariffs: an analysis of the trade, welfare, and emission effects. J. Int. Econ. 109, 195–213 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Böhringer, C., Schneider, J. & Asane-Otoo, E. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. Environ. Resour. Econ. 78, 669–708 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Monjon, S. & Quirion, P. Addressing leakage in the EU ETS: border adjustment or output-based allocation? Ecol. Econ. 70, 1957–1971 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 59.

    Lanz, B., Rutherford, T. F. & Tilton, J. E. Subglobal climate agreements and energy‐intensive activities: an evaluation of carbon leakage in the copper industry. World Econ. 36, 254–279 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Lyubich, E., Shapiro, J. S. & Walker, R. Regulating mis-measured pollution: implications of firm heterogeneity for environmental policy. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 136–42 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354–359 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51–73 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    Fowlie, M. L., Petersen, C. & Reguant, M. Border carbon adjustments when carbon intensity varies across producers: evidence from California. AEA Papers Proc. 111, 401–405 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Fouré, J., Guimbard, H. & Monjon, S. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: what would be the cost for the European Union? Energy Econ. 54, 349–362 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 65.

    Burniaux, J. M., Chateau, J. & Duval, R. Is there a case for carbon-based border tax adjustment? An applied general equilibrium analysis. Appl. Econ. 45, 2231–2240 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 66.

    Böhringer, C., Müller, A. & Schneider, J. Carbon tariffs revisited. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 629–672 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    McKibbin, W. J., Morris, A. C., Wilcoxen, P. J. & Liu, W. The role of border carbon adjustments in a U.S. carbon tax. Clim. Change Econ. 9, 1840011 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 68.

    Limão, N. in New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online 2nd edn (eds Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E.) (Macmillan, 2008).

  • 69.

    Lanzi, E., Chateau, J. & Dellink, R. Alternative approaches for levelling carbon prices in a world with fragmented carbon markets. Energy Econ. 34, S240–S250 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 70.

    Böhringer, C., Carbone, J. C. & Rutherford, T. F. Embodied carbon tariffs. Scand. J. Econ. 120, 183–210 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 71.

    Balistreri, E. J., Kaffine, D. T. & Yonezawa, H. Optimal environmental border adjustments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Environ. Resour. Econ. 74, 1037–1075 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 72.

    Mehling, M., Asselt, H., Das, K., Droege, S. & Verkuijl, C. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am. J. Int. Law 113, 433–481 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 73.

    Helm, D., Hepburn, C. & Ruta, G. Trade, climate change, and the political game theory of border carbon adjustments. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2, 368–394 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 74.

    Al Khourdajie, A. & Finus, M. International environmental agreements and carbon border adjustments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124, 102405 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 75.

    Lessmann, K., Marschinski, R. & Edenhofer, O. The effects of tariffs on coalition formation in a dynamic global warming game. Econ. Model. 26, 641–649 (2009).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 76.

    Irfanoglu, Z. B., Sesmero, J. P. & Golub, A. Potential of border tax adjustments to deter free riding in international climate agreements. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 024009 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 77.

    Böhringer, C., Carbone, J. C. & Rutherford, T. F. The strategic value of carbon tariffs. Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Pol. 8, 28–51 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 78.

    Nordhaus, W. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1339–1370 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 79.

    Böhringer, C. & Rutherford, T.F. Paris after Trump: An Inconvenient Insight CESifo Working Paper 6531 (CESifo, 2017).

  • 80.

    Hagen, A. & Schneider, J. Trade sanctions and the stability of climate coalitions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109, 102504 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 81.

    Hübner, C. Perception of the Planned EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in Asia Pacific—An Expert Survey (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2021); https://www.kas.de/documents/265079/265128/EU+Carbon+Border+Adjustment+Mechanism.pdf/fed1d5a4-4424-c450-a1b9-b7dbd3616179?version=1.1&t=1615356593906

  • 82.

    Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K. E. & Storrøsten, H. B. Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. J. Public Econ. 149, 35–46 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 83.

    Ismer, R., Neuhoff, K. & Pirlot, A. Border Carbon Adjustments and Alternative Measures for the EU-ETS: An Evaluation DIW Discussion Paper 1855 (DIW, 2020).

  • 84.

    Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K. E. & Storrøsten, H. B. Smart hedging against carbon leakage. Econ. Pol. 36, 439–484 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 85.

    Stede, J., Pauliuk, S., Hardadi, G. & Neuhoff, K. Carbon pricing of basic materials: incentives and risks for the value chain and consumers. Ecol. Econ. 189, 107168 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 86.

    Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rivers, N. Intensity-Based Rebating Working Paper 21–37 (RFF, 2021).

  • 87.

    GTAP 10 Data Base (Global Trade Analysis Project, 2014); https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v10/index.aspx



  • Source link

    Previous Post

    7 Marketing Ideas to Get More Traffic in Your Booth When at a Trade Show – Times Square Chronicles

    Next Post

    WWE RAW Live Results For 1/3/2022

    Exhibition News

    Exhibition News

    Next Post
    WWE RAW Live Results For 1/3/2022

    WWE RAW Live Results For 1/3/2022

    Stay Connected test

    • 69.6k Followers
    • 23.6k Followers
    • 99 Subscribers
    • Trending
    • Comments
    • Latest
    Unions maintain Brussels Airlines strike despite management’s formal notice of default: half of Monday’s flights cancelled

    Unions maintain Brussels Airlines strike despite management’s formal notice of default: half of Monday’s flights cancelled

    December 18, 2021
    Key Technology appoints marketing communications manager

    Key Technology appoints marketing communications manager

    January 7, 2022
    Business travel’s comeback depends on Covid’s end

    Business travel’s comeback depends on Covid’s end

    March 3, 2022
    SideCopy APT update. GAO warns of US critical infrastructure risk. Treason, Moscow- & Saint Louis-style. CISA ICS advisories.

    SideCopy APT update. GAO warns of US critical infrastructure risk. Treason, Moscow- & Saint Louis-style. CISA ICS advisories.

    December 4, 2021
    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    0
    congatec opens virtual trade show booth for interactive information exchange

    congatec opens virtual trade show booth for interactive information exchange

    0
    2022 Ford Maverick Hybrid MPG and Suspension Deep Dive

    2022 Ford Maverick Hybrid MPG and Suspension Deep Dive

    0

    MyPlanet Living Center Opens Showroom

    0
    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    July 5, 2022
    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    July 5, 2022
    Massac County Youth Fair begins July 15 | News

    Massac County Youth Fair begins July 15 | News

    July 5, 2022
    Ancient Nautilus, Uncertain Future | Hakai Magazine

    Ancient Nautilus, Uncertain Future | Hakai Magazine

    July 5, 2022

    Recent News

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    July 5, 2022
    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    July 5, 2022
    Massac County Youth Fair begins July 15 | News

    Massac County Youth Fair begins July 15 | News

    July 5, 2022
    Ancient Nautilus, Uncertain Future | Hakai Magazine

    Ancient Nautilus, Uncertain Future | Hakai Magazine

    July 5, 2022
    January 2022
    M T W T F S S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
    « Dec   Feb »

    Browse by Category

    • Conventions
    • Trade Show Booth
    • Trade Show Display Rental
    • Trade Show Exhibitsa
    • Trade Show In Usa
    • Trade Show Stands

    Recent News

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    07/05/22: NBC revives “Magnum P.I.”

    July 5, 2022
    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    International Bookings to Spain Rise Sharply

    July 5, 2022
    • About Us
    • Privacy Policy

    exhibition news.net

    No Result
    View All Result

    exhibition news.net

    Welcome Back!

    Login to your account below

    Forgotten Password?

    Retrieve your password

    Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

    Log In