Environmental Policy
List Of The Committee Members Of Research Panel_List of the committee members_Reference 1
Reference 1: Model analysis concerning carbon tax optional plans (AIM/Japan)
The below table represents the simulation results of CO2 emission reduction effect by AIM model.
AIM model used here is the part of End-Use Model (model for final energy consumption) within the "Scenario Analysis of Global Warming Using the Asian Pacific Integrated Model / Japan" being developed by National Institute for Environment Studies and Nagoya University's project team. This model simulate the advancement of energy conservation by setting detailed conditions of energy service and its appliances.
Analysis scope and mechanical restraints did not allow all the results to be derived faithfully from the above-mentioned plans 1 to 4.
AIM/Japan simulation results | Plan 1 | Plan 2 | Plan 3 | Plan 4 | Reference (to compare with Plan 2) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard (non-taxed) | 3000 yen/tC + subsidy | 30000 yen/tC + industrial sectors untaxed | 1500 yen/tC + energy tax | 1500 yen/tC + energy tax (increased yearly) | 30000 yen/tC (without exceptions for industry) | |||||||
Industry | 1990 | 153.8 | 1990 | 153.8 | 1990 | 153.8 | 1990 | 153.8 | 1990 | 153.8 | 1990 | 153.8 |
2000 | 149.5 (-2.8%) |
2000 | 144.8 (-5.9%) |
2000 | 149.5 (-2.8%) |
2000 | 146.4 (-4.8%) |
2000 | 149.5 (-2.8%) |
2000 | 145.6 (-5.3%) |
|
2005 | 147.8 (-3.9%) |
2005 | 143.1 (-6.9%) |
2005 | 147.8 (-3.9%) |
2005 | 143.2 (-6.9%) |
2005 | 147.8 (-3.9%) |
2005 | 141.2 (-8.2%) |
|
2010 | 145.5 (-5.4%) |
2010 | 139.1 (-9.5%) |
2010 | 145.5 (-5.4%) |
2010 | 141.0 (-8.3%) |
2010 | 145.5 (-5.4%) |
2010 | 139.0 (-9.6%) |
|
Household | 1990 | 38 | 1990 | 38 | 1990 | 38 | 1990 | 38 | 1990 | 38 | 1990 | 38 |
2000 | 44.6 (17.4%) |
2000 | 42.6 (12.6%) |
2000 | 42.0 (10.5%) |
2000 | 43.3 (13.9%) |
2000 | 43.4 (14.3%) |
2000 | 42.0 (10.5%) |
|
2005 | 47.0 (23.7%) |
2005 | 42.8 (12.6%) |
2005 | 41.8 (9,9%) |
2005 | 45.5 (19.7) |
2005 | 42.2 (11.1%) |
2005 | 41.8 (9.9%) |
|
2010 | 46.6 (22.6%) |
2010 | 41.8 (10.1%) |
2010 | 42.7 (12.4%) |
2010 | 43.4 (14.2%) |
2010 | 41.6 (9.4%) |
2010 | 42.7 (12.4%) |
|
Business | 1990 | 33.6 | 1990 | 33.6 | 1990 | 33.6 | 1990 | 33.6 | 1990 | 33.6 | 1990 | 33.6 |
2000 | 37.0 (10.2%) |
2000 | 36.2 (7.6%) |
2000 | 36.2 (7.7%) |
2000 | 36.2 (7.6%) |
2000 | 36.2 (7.6%) |
2000 | 36.2 (7.7%) |
|
2005 | 37.0 (10.1%) |
2005 | 36.1 (7.4%) |
2005 | 36.1 (7.4%) |
2005 | 36.1 (7.4%) |
2005 | 36.1 (7.4%) |
2005 | 36.1 (7.4%) |
|
2010 | 36.0 (7.1%) |
2010 | 35.1 (4.5%) |
2010 | 35.1 (4.4%) |
2010 | 35.1 (4.5%) |
2010 | 35.1 (4.5%) |
2010 | 35.1 (4.4%) |
|
Transportation | 1990 | 58.5 | 1990 | 58.5 | 1990 | 58.5 | 1990 | 58.5 | 1990 | 58.5 | 1990 | 58.5 |
2000 | 61.6 (5.4%) |
2000 | 60.2 (2.9%) |
2000 | 60.3 (3.0%) |
2000 | 60.9 (4.1%) |
2000 | 61.2 (4.7%) |
2000 | 60.3 (3.0%) |
|
2005 | 62.9 (7.6%) |
2005 | 59.4 (1.6%) |
2005 | 61.0 (4.3%) |
2005 | 60.8 (3.9%) |
2005 | 61.5 (5.1%) |
2005 | 61.0 (4.3%) |
|
2010 | 62.9 (7.5%) |
2010 | 59.5 (1.7%) |
2010 | 61.9 (5.9%) |
2010 | 60.5 (3.3%) |
2010 | 60.8 (3.9%) |
2010 | 61.9 (5.9%) |
|
Total | 1990 | 320 | 1990 | 320 | 1990 | 320 | 1990 | 320 | 1990 | 320 | 1990 | 320 |
2000 | 328.9 (2.8%) |
2000 | 319.8 (-0.1%) |
2000 | 324.0 (1.3%) |
2000 | 322.8 (0.9%) |
2000 | 326.4 (2.0%) |
2000 | 320.2 (0.1%) |
|
2005 | 330.8 (3.4%) |
2005 | 317.5 (-0.8%) |
2005 | 322.8 (0.9%) |
2005 | 321.7 (0.5%) |
2005 | 323.7 (1.2%) |
2005 | 316.1 (-1.2%) |
|
2010 | 327.1 (2.2%) |
2010 | 311.7 (-2.6%) |
2010 | 321.4 (0.4%) |
2010 | 316.0 (-1.2%) |
2010 | 319.1 (-0.3%) |
2010 | 314.8 (-1.6%) |
Note)
- Plan 1 of "Carbon tax combining low tax rate with subsidy" can achieve the year 2000 goal and effects equal to or above the results recognized when only carbon tax of 30000 yen per 1 ton of carbon is implemented.
- Plan 2 exempts carbon tax from not only the sectors consuming large volume of energy but whole industry. Possibilities to contract CO2 emission reduction agreement are excluded.
- In Plan 3, subsidiary effects on new energy development are not considered, and CO2 emission reduction effects are small compared with Plan 1.
- In Plan 4, subsidiary effects in developing nations and tax-exemption for consumers of small volume of energy are not taken into consideration.