いくらが高すぎるのか？気候緩和と社会公平性のための炭素税閾値
How much is too much? Carbon tax thresholds for climate mitigation and social equity (原題)
Zeineb Al Hadi Nagara, Montassar Zayati, Ridha Nouira
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
70カ国・2000〜2022年の動学的パネル閾値分析により、炭素税の有効性に二つの転換点を特定。1トン当たり31ドル未満では排出削減の誘因が不十分で、84ドルを超えると低所得世帯への逆進性で所得不平等が悪化する。環境効果と社会的中立性が両立する狭い政策余地を示し、閾値超えの課税と歳入再分配の併用を提言する。
English
Using a dynamic panel threshold approach across 70 countries (2000–2022), the study identifies two turning points in carbon tax effectiveness. Below $31/tCO₂ the tax fails to cut emissions, while above $84/tCO₂ it worsens income inequality through regressive effects on low-income households. It highlights a narrow policy window where carbon pricing is both environmentally effective and socially neutral, recommending taxes above the environmental threshold paired with revenue redistribution.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では炭素税（地球温暖化対策税）やGX経済移行債、カーボンプライシング制度設計の議論が進む中、税率水準と逆進性緩和の実証的根拠を提供する。SSBJ開示や投資家対応と直接の接点は薄いが、政策立案・制度設計の参考になる。
In the global GX context
Amid global expansion of carbon pricing under CBAM, EU ETS, and Article 6, this paper offers quantitative thresholds for calibrating carbon taxes to balance mitigation and equity. It informs the design of revenue-recycling mechanisms central to just-transition and transition-finance debates.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:炭素税の非線形効果と公平性トレードオフを定量化した閾値推定の実証枠組みを提供する。
🏢実務担当者:炭素価格の将来水準と逆進性対策を踏まえ、社内炭素価格設定や移行計画の前提を見直す材料になる。
🏛政策担当者:炭素税の税率設計と歳入再分配を組み合わせ、環境効果と社会公平性を両立させる政策窓の存在を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study investigates how carbon taxation simultaneously affects climate change mitigation and income inequality through potential nonlinear threshold effects. Using a dynamic panel threshold approach and data from 70 countries over the period 2000–2022, the analysis identifies two critical turning points in the effectiveness of carbon taxation. The results show that a carbon tax below $31 per tonne of CO₂ fails to generate sufficient incentives to reduce emissions. Furthermore, while a tax exceeding this level becomes environmentally effective, it also introduces a significant social trade-off: once the tax surpasses $84 per ton of CO₂, it tends to worsen income inequality by disproportionately affecting low-income households. This highlights a narrow policy window where carbon pricing is both environmentally effective and socially neutral. To achieve both objectives, policymakers should adopt a dual strategy — setting carbon taxes above the environmental threshold while simultaneously redistributing revenues to offset regressive effects. Robustness tests using an alternative carbon tax proxy and multiple climate indicators (CO₂ emissions, precipitation, humidity, and temperature) confirm the consistency of the results. Overall, the study provides new empirical evidence on how the precise calibration of carbon taxation can balance sustainability and equity goals in climate policy.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08790-9first seen 2026-09-24 04:36:49
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。