Cost-effectiveness comparisons between two typical pricing policies, i.e., cap and trade and carbon tax, are rare in the literature and are tackled in this study. We define various carbon shadow prices at different administrative levels. By using a computable general equilibrium model, the cost-effectiveness of various policies is compared in terms of the estimation of carbon shadow prices. The results show that an energy cap-and-trade policy yields a close GDP-based carbon shadow price but a lower GSPV-based (gross-social-production-value-based) carbon shadow price than a proportional energy reduction policy does. Compared to a cap-and-trade policy, a carbon tax policy yields a much lower GDP-based carbon shadow price but a higher GSPV-based price. Improving the stringency of either a cap-and-trade policy or a carbon tax policy has limit impact on the industrial structure of the whole economy despite the impact on both the GDP and the GSPV are different between these two policies. The comparison of the two carbon pricing policies mainly implies that a carbon tax is more cost-effective than cap-and-trade for a carbon- and trade-intensive economy, but cap-and-trade has lower sector-level impacts than carbon tax especially when the cap restriction is loose.

两种典型定价政策（即上限和贸易以及碳税）之间的成本效益比较在文献中很少见，并且在本研究中已解决。我们在不同的管理级别上定义了各种碳影子价格。通过使用可计算的一般均衡模型，可以根据碳影子价格的估计来比较各种政策的成本效益。结果表明，与按比例减少能源的政策相比，能源限额和贸易政策产生的GDP碳影子价格接近，但基于GSPV（基于社会生产总值）的碳影子价格更低。与限额交易政策相比，碳税政策产生的GDP碳影子价格低得多，而基于GSPV的价格更高。尽管这两个政策对GDP和GSPV的影响都不相同，但提高总量管制和贸易政策或碳税政策的严格性却限制了对整个经济产业结构的影响。两种碳定价政策的比较主要表明，对于碳密集型和贸易密集型经济体，碳税比限额交易更具成本效益，但限额贸易比碳税具有更低的行业影响尤其是在瓶盖限制松动的情况下。