Costs of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol: a developing country perspective

Abstract Mexico is currently the 15th largest emitter in the world of greenhouse gases and by far the largest source of such emissions in Latin America. Thus, from a strategic standpoint, Mexico's decision to abide or not by carbon emission restrictions in the future is a matter of relative significance. Mexico has found itself under intense pressure to join with the world's industrialized economies and develop a plan for limiting its use of carbon-based energy sources in the future. Such a plan would, of course, entail economic costs and could significantly limit future growth, investment, and consumer welfare. A carbon tax may reduce the growth rate of carbon emissions as well as impose constraints on sector-related and overall economic growth. Nonetheless, it has a progressive effect on welfare levels in all simulations, meaning that it benefits (or harms less) the groups with lower income levels. On the other hand, a Double Dividend is very unlikely to result from this policy. Only under significantly high rates of technological change in the Mexican economy, namely of 5–6%, can a reduction in the rate of growth of carbon emissions and an increase in welfare be attained for all income groups simultaneously. At the same time, high rates of technological change increase production and therefore emissions. Overall, there are strong benefits from the application of this policy in that it reduces the growth rate of carbon emissions. This exercise is a first approach to the application of an ample environmental tax to a developing country and results show that a favorable outcome may be expected. However, estimating the costs of practical policies to make investment in energy-saving technological change attractive to producers has yet to be addressed.

[1]  Arnold C. Harberger.  Taxation, Resource Allocation, and Welfare , 1964 .

[2]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument to Reduce CO2 Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis , 1995 .

[3]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  J. Slemrod.  A General Equilibrium Model of Taxation with Endogenous Financial Behavior , 1981 .

[5]  Dale W. Jorgenson,et al.  Intertemporal general equilibrium modeling of U.S. environmental regulation , 1990 .

[6]  Tjalling C. Koopmans,et al.  On the concept of optimal economic growth , 1963 .

[7]  J. Poterba,et al.  Tax Policy to Combat Global Warming: On Designing a Carbon Tax , 1991 .

[8]  F. Butter,et al.  Energy levies and endogenous technology in an emperical simulation model for the Netherlands , 1994 .

[9]  L. Goulder,et al.  Tax Policy, Asset Prices, and Growth: a General Equilibrium Analysis , 1989 .

[10]  John Whalley,et al.  A general equilibrium calculation of the effects of differential taxation of income from capital in the U.S. , 1972 .

[11]  R. Mooij,et al.  Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation. , 1994 .

[12]  H. Scarf,et al.  Applied General Equilibrium Analysis , 1984 .

[13]  Antonio Yúnez-Naude.  Medio ambiente: problemas y soluciones , 1994 .

[14]  M. Feldstein.  Behavioral Simulation Methods in Tax Policy Analysis , 1984 .

[15]  L. Goulder,et al.  Effects of Carbon Taxes in an Economy with Prior Tax Distortions: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis , 1995 .

[16]  James M. Poterba,et al.  Global Warming Policy: A Public Finance Perspective , 1993 .

[17]  J. Shoven,et al.  Applying general equilibrium , 1993 .

[18]  F. Ramsey,et al.  THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF SAVING , 1928 .

[19]  L. Goulder,et al.  Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide , 1995 .

[20]  A. Bovenberg,et al.  Green policies in a small open economy. , 1994 .

[21]  J. Shoven.  The Incidence and Efficiency Effects of Taxes on Income from Capital , 1976, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  Arnold C. Harberger.  The Incidence of the Corporation Income Tax , 1962, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  J. Houghton.  Climate change 1994 : radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios , 1995 .

[24]  A. S. Manne,et al.  International Trade in Oil, Gas and Carbon Emission Rights: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model* , 1994 .

[25]  W. Keller.  Tax Incidence: A General Equilibrium Approach , 1979 .

[26]  R. Solow.  A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth , 1956 .

[27]  D. Jorgenson,et al.  Reducing US carbon emissions: an econometric general equilibrium assessment , 1993 .

[28]  Rudiger Dornbusch,et al.  Global warming : economic policy responses , 1993 .

[29]  Anwar Shah,et al.  Carbon taxes, the greenhouse effect, and developing countries , 1992 .

[30]  C. Reynolds.  The Mexican Economy , 1975 .

[31]  John Whalley,et al.  A General Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Evaluation , 1985 .

[32]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Optimal Greenhouse-Gas Reductions and Tax Policy in the "Dice" Model , 1993 .

[33]  Paul S. Armington.  A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production (Une théorie de la demande de produits différenciés d'après leur origine) (Una teoría de la demanda de productos distinguiéndolos según el lugar de producción) , 1969 .

[34]  J. Whalley.  A General Equilibrium Assessment of the 1973 United Kingdom Tax Reform , 1975 .

[35]  J. Poterba.  Global warming : a public finance perspective , 1993 .