PDF(2.7mb) - 國家政策研究基金會

246 Taiwan Development Perspectives 2009
Effect on Output Growth
Table 6 shows when the 22-year progressive carbon
tax rate is applied, GDP will be reduced by 1.19
percent by 2020, which is less than the reduction due to
the application of the one-step approach (-1.57%). The
sectoral ranking in terms of the decrease in output as a
result of imposing the 22-year progressive carbon tax
rate is also the same as that in the case of the one-step
approach.
Table 6 Effect of Carbon Tax on Taiwan’s Economy
[Sweden Tax:U.S.$ 22.2/CO 2 (Ton)]
One-Step Approach
Progressive Approach
CO 2 reduction rate (%) -25.77 -25.31
Price change (%) 2.26 1.01
Output growth (%) -1.57 -1.19
4.5 Energy Tax versus Carbon Tax
A comparison of the effects of energy tax and carbon
tax without tax reduction is shown in Table 5 12 .
We conclude that in order to reach the same goal of
reducing CO 2 emission by 25 percent, the negative impact
of carbon tax is only one third that of energy tax..
The government should enforce carbon tax instead of
energy tax. Inasmuch as the CO 2 emission per unit of
caloric value is concerned, carbon tax on fuel oil should
be close to that on gasoline and diesel, while that on
coal should be made higher than on fuel oil. However,
the energy tax rate for fuel oil is one twentieth of gasoline,
while the similar tax on coal is even lower than
that on fuel oil.
To moderate the negative impact of carbon tax on
the economy, the government should consider using the
revenue from carbon tax collections to lower the personal
income tax by increasing the level of minimum
tax reduction; to eliminate the road maintenance levy
and all of the excise taxes except automobile and cement;
to raise an energy research and development fund;
to reduce social security payment; to subsidize the energy
cost of low-income-families; to purchase carbon
dioxide credits from abroad; and to refund part of carbon
tax to those who distinguish themselves in achieving
energy efficiency.
5. Merits and Demerits of Carbon Tax and
Emission Trading
Table 7 compares the merits and demerits of carbon
tax and emission trading. We conclude that carbon
tax is much better than emission trading in fairness,
acceptability, timeliness, scope of levy, use of the tax
revenue and cost of transaction. On the other hand, the
emission trading system surpasses in certainty of emission
reduction. Carbon tax therefore is more suitable
than emission trading to enforce, if one of them has to
be chosen in Taiwan. However, in order to enhance the
effectiveness in emission reduction and demand the big
emitters such as the power sector and energy- intensive
industries to share more reduction obligations, the government
should consider enforcing both carbon tax and
emission trading at the same time. It is worthy of note
that to enforce carbon tax and emission trading simultaneously
is not without precedent. They have been
enforced in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the
Netherlands, and Great Britain.
12 No simulation on carbon tax with tax reform has
been done by this study.