We explore the macroeconomic and distributional impacts of unilateral carbon pricing in Austrian economic sectors, which are not covered by the EU emission trading scheme ETS, under various assumptions of revenue usage. We use a recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium model with twelve groups of private households, differentiated by income quartile and location of residence. Pricing of non-ETS CO₂ emissions without any targeted compensation of households turns out to be progressive (when measured in equivalent variation, or welfare) with households living in the periphery being affected the most. This outcome is explained by the dominating progressive factor income effect, which works against regressive consumer price impacts. Considering the positive contribution to welfare from increased public goods provision, low-income households are even better off than without carbon pricing. We compare the revenue usage options ‘no targeted compensation’ with either unconditional or revenue-neutral ‘eco-bonus per capita payments’ as well as revenue-neutral cuts in either ‘labor tax rates’ or ‘value added tax rates.’ We discuss our results from a Utilitarian, Rawlsian and polarization-averse equity perspective. Applying equal weights to the criteria ‘environmental effectiveness’, ‘cost effectiveness’, ‘public budget’ and ‘welfare’, Rawlsian decision makers would prefer the no targeted compensation option. Otherwise, the revenue usage option of revenue-neutral cuts in labor tax rates balance best investigated multiple criteria.

在各种收入使用假设下，我们探讨了欧盟排放交易计划 ETS 未涵盖的奥地利经济部门单边碳定价对宏观经济和分配的影响。我们使用递归动态可计算一般均衡模型，包含 12 组私人家庭，按收入四分位数和居住地点区分。非 ETS CO _{2 的}定价没有对家庭进行任何有针对性的补偿的排放被证明是渐进的（当以等效变化或福利衡量时），生活在外围的家庭受到的影响最大。这一结果可以通过占主导地位的累进要素收入效应来解释，它与消费价格的累进影响相反。考虑到公共产品供应增加对福利的积极贡献，低收入家庭的状况甚至比没有碳定价要好。我们将收入使用选项“无针对性补偿”与无条件或收入中性的“人均生态奖金支付”以及收入中性削减“劳动税率”或“增值税率”进行比较。我们从功利主义、罗尔斯和两极分化的公平角度讨论我们的结果。对标准“环境有效性”、“成本有效性”、“公共预算”和“福利”应用同等权重，罗尔斯的决策者更喜欢无针对性的补偿选项。否则，收入中性削减劳动税率的收入使用选项可以最好地平衡多个标准。