경제·환경 연관 분석을 위한 dynamic CGE 모델 개발

Abstract

In this study we have analyzed economic costs of carbon taxes imposed on fossil fuels associated with climate change issue in Korea. The model is of a small open economy forward looking dynamic CGE over 1998-2047. Carbon taxes are imposed on coal, oil, and gas from year 2013 through 2047 the last period of the model. Tax base starts with 100,000 Korean Won/Tonne of Carbon (TC) through KW400,000. The primary findings through this study are as follows: First, the primary economic indicators reflecting the results of sensitivity analysis through the study have been estimated that, for instance, in year 2025 for 100,000KW/TC of a carbon tax rate, the EVs span -0.217% to -0.167% and the GDP changes -0.195% to -0.432% while the results in case of 400,000KW/TC are -0.472% to -0.575% for EVs and -0.708% to -1.525% for GDPs. Second, the quantity of emission reduced due to carbon tax of 100,000KW/TC amounts to 17(25) million TC and the unabated is 1.19(1.78) times 2000 level in 2015(2035). The corresponding economic costs of the abatement in terms of GDP are 1,261 billion Korean Won in 2015 and 4,551 KW in 2035. Third, the GDP changes resulting from sensitivity analysis are almost identical when assumed a tax rate is 100,000KW/TC and annual growth rate is 3% or 2%: The GDP changes with 3%(2%) growth rate have resulted in ？0.025%(-0.023%) in 2005, -0.176%(-0.176%) in 2015, -0.292%(-0.294%) in 2025, -0.347%(-0.350%) in 2035, and -0.371%(-0.374%) in 2045, respectively. Compared to the previous Korean studies on the carbon tax simulation, we are inclined to tell as follows: 1) Overall, there seems no significant difference of the economic cost assessments between the current study and the previous ones in terms of GDP loss, however, 2) With increasing the tax rates, the marginal changes in emission reduced through the present study are less than those of previous ones. We suggest the following policy recommendations based on the results we have found from the study. First, the carbon tax approach has to be utilized in limited magnitude. In the current study we have concluded that the carbon tax approach should be cautious to be employed over a certain amount of the rates vis-？-vis emission reduction target. Second, in order for cost-effectiveness to be realized in emission control strategy, the comprehensive approach should be introduced. If we enable to incorporate cost information on bottom-up approaches into top-down one, we are able to gear towards one more step into a comprehensive decision making on climate change issue. Third, when we recognize the limited role of carbon taxes, the action to find alternative solutions should be taken. Serious consideration of developing renewable energies is one of candidates in this circumstance.