Climate Policy ( IF 5.3 ) Pub Date : 2022-08-05 , DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2022.2104793 Anne Owen 1 , Josh Burke 2 , Esin Serin 2
ABSTRACT
The UK government’s net-zero commitment assumes the use of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). Quantifying where the costs of funding these technologies fall – and their magnitude – provides greater insight into potential fairness of future government policies. Using a microsimulation model, this study is the first to evaluate the potential distributional impacts. We consider the distributional incidence and magnitude on household income deciles if the costs for deploying and operating BECCS and DACCS are placed on different sectors of the economy via a range of viable policy funding options. Using existing and novel policy funding options, we demonstrate that levying the costs entirely on the household energy bill is the most regressive of the options considered. We find aviation to be an important point of intervention from a distributional perspective. Higher-income households have larger aviation carbon footprints than lower-income households, meaning passing costs onto households via aviation alone could help fund BECCS and DACCS while having minimal impacts on social welfare. Funding BECCS and DACCS via income tax emerged as the only progressive way of apportioning costs across income deciles. As the benefits of carbon removal accrue to society as a whole, there is further argument that the costs should be shared across society in the fairest way possible. However, such an approach has the potential to blunt the price signal that polluters face. In reality, some pass-through cost may be desirable to adhere to equity principles under a polluter pays principle and to create an incentive for polluters to switch to cleaner inputs and adopt low-carbon technologies.
Key policy insights
This study is the first to evaluate distributional incidence and magnitude of costs to households, if costs for deploying and operating BECCS and DACCS are placed on different sectors of the economy.
Recovering policy costs via income tax provides a progressive option to fund BECCS and DACCS.
All modelled alternative funding options result in regressive outcomes where low-income households pay disproportionately more towards the costs of BECCS and DACCS.
Funding BECCS and DACCS through levies on household energy bills further entrenches inequality; spend on electricity as a share of income is disproportionately high for low-income households.
中文翻译：
谁为英国的 BECCS 和 DACCS 买单：设计公平的气候政策
摘要
英国政府的净零承诺假设使用具有碳捕获和储存 (BECCS) 和直接空气碳捕获和储存 (DACCS) 的生物能源。量化资助这些技术的成本在哪里下降——以及它们的规模——可以更深入地了解未来政府政策的潜在公平性。使用微观模拟模型，本研究首次评估了潜在的分布影响。如果通过一系列可行的政策融资方案将部署和运营 BECCS 和 DACCS 的成本置于经济的不同部门，我们会考虑家庭收入的分布发生率和大小。使用现有的和新颖的政策资助方案，我们证明完全对家庭能源账单征收成本是所考虑的方案中最倒退的。从分配的角度来看，我们发现航空是一个重要的干预点。与低收入家庭相比，高收入家庭的航空碳足迹更大，这意味着仅通过航空将成本转嫁给家庭可以帮助资助 BECCS 和 DACCS，同时对社会福利的影响最小。通过所得税为 BECCS 和 DACCS 提供资金成为在收入十分位数之间分配成本的唯一渐进方式。随着碳去除对整个社会的好处，有进一步的论点认为成本应该以最公平的方式在整个社会中分摊。然而，这种方法有可能削弱污染者面临的价格信号。事实上，
主要政策见解
如果将部署和运营 BECCS 和 DACCS 的成本放在经济的不同部门，这项研究是第一个评估家庭成本的分配发生率和幅度的研究。
通过所得税收回政策成本为资助 BECCS 和 DACCS 提供了一种渐进的选择。
所有模拟的替代融资方案都会导致倒退结果，即低收入家庭为 BECCS 和 DACCS 的成本支付的费用不成比例。
通过对家庭能源账单征税来资助 BECCS 和 DACCS，进一步加剧了不平等；对于低收入家庭来说，电力支出占收入的比例过高。
京公网安备 11010802027423号