Premium
Optimal Taxes on Fossil Fuel in General Equilibrium
Author(s) -
Golosov Mikhail,
Hassler John,
Krusell Per,
Tsyvinski Aleh
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
econometrica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 16.7
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1468-0262
pISSN - 0012-9682
DOI - 10.3982/ecta10217
Subject(s) - economics , carbon tax , discounting , dynamic stochastic general equilibrium , optimal tax , econometrics , externality , depreciation (economics) , general equilibrium theory , climate change , fossil fuel , natural resource economics , microeconomics , monetary economics , chemistry , ecology , profit (economics) , monetary policy , capital formation , finance , organic chemistry , financial capital , biology
We analyze a dynamic stochastic general‐equilibrium (DSGE) model with an externality—through climate change—from using fossil energy. Our central result is a simple formula for the marginal externality damage of emissions (or, equivalently, for the optimal carbon tax). This formula, which holds under quite plausible assumptions, reveals that the damage is proportional to current GDP, with the proportion depending only on three factors: (i) discounting, (ii) the expected damage elasticity (how many percent of the output flow is lost from an extra unit of carbon in the atmosphere), and (iii) the structure of carbon depreciation in the atmosphere. Thus, the stochastic values of future output, consumption, and the atmospheric CO 2 concentration, as well as the paths of technology (whether endogenous or exogenous) and population, and so on, all disappear from the formula. We find that the optimal tax should be a bit higher than the median, or most well‐known, estimates in the literature. We also formulate a parsimonious yet comprehensive and easily solved model allowing us to compute the optimal and market paths for the use of different sources of energy and the corresponding climate change. We find coal—rather than oil—to be the main threat to economic welfare, largely due to its abundance. We also find that the costs of inaction are particularly sensitive to the assumptions regarding the substitutability of different energy sources and technological progress.