Scholarlink

<p>Targeting non-CO<sub>2</sub> GHG is promoted as cost-effective, yet distributional consequences remain unclear. Here we compare CO<sub>2</sub>-only and multi-GHG carbon pricing, calibrated to the same climate outcome, across 201 household expenditure groups in 168 countries. Using a global social accounting matrix tracing price and income effects through supply chains, we find that adding non-CO<sub>2</sub> GHGs makes carbon pricing more regressive: the relative burden rises for poorer households and falls for richer ones. The mechanism is compositional: relative to CO<sub>2</sub>-only pricing, multi-GHG pricing lowers energy prices but raises food prices; because poorer households devote larger budget shares to food, they experience larger burden, while richer households, whose consumption is more energy-intensive and whose incomes are less exposed, face smaller relative loss. Regionally, richer households in low-income regions, especially sub-Saharan Africa, face sizable cost increases. Our findings highlight the need for equity-oriented design to keep carbon pricing socially acceptable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Distributional effects of expanding climate targets beyond CO2

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月1日

查看全文
  • Yating Kang,
  • Peipei Tian,
  • Laixiang Sun,
  • Xiangjie Chen,
  • Yuru Guan,
  • Kuishuang Feng,
  • Klaus Hubacek

摘要

Targeting non-CO2 GHG is promoted as cost-effective, yet distributional consequences remain unclear. Here we compare CO2-only and multi-GHG carbon pricing, calibrated to the same climate outcome, across 201 household expenditure groups in 168 countries. Using a global social accounting matrix tracing price and income effects through supply chains, we find that adding non-CO2 GHGs makes carbon pricing more regressive: the relative burden rises for poorer households and falls for richer ones. The mechanism is compositional: relative to CO2-only pricing, multi-GHG pricing lowers energy prices but raises food prices; because poorer households devote larger budget shares to food, they experience larger burden, while richer households, whose consumption is more energy-intensive and whose incomes are less exposed, face smaller relative loss. Regionally, richer households in low-income regions, especially sub-Saharan Africa, face sizable cost increases. Our findings highlight the need for equity-oriented design to keep carbon pricing socially acceptable.