| 377 | 0 | 177 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
欧盟作为我国第二大贸易伙伴，计划于2026年正式对进口高碳产品征收碳边境调节税，这势必对我国出口产生重要影响。本文基于中国碳核算数据库（CEADs）、《中国工业统计年鉴》与进出口海关数据，构建以贸易弹性和碳排放密度为核心的分析框架，估算碳边境调节税对我国制造业出口的影响以及在行业、省份层面上的异质性。研究发现，碳边境调节税预计使我国制造业总出口额减少1.13%。在行业层面上，黑色金属冶炼和压延加工业与非金属矿物制品业受碳边境调节税影响最大，这两个行业的出口额减少量占总减少量的67%；在省份层面上，出口额减少量与出口额减少幅度呈负相关，出口额减少幅度最大的是青海，出口额减少量最大的是广东。数值模拟进一步发现，若将各省份黑色金属冶炼和压延加工业与非金属矿物制品业的碳排放密度降低至这两个行业的全国最低水平，那么碳边境调节税对我国制造业出口的不利影响有望下降66%；若进一步将各省份各行业的碳排放密度都降低至各行业的全国最低水平，则碳边境调节税的不利影响有望下降95%。总体而言，欧盟碳边境调节税对我国制造业出口的不利影响处于可控范围，各省份通过推动本省份重点行业低碳转型可以有效应对碳边境调节税的不利影响。
Abstract：As the second-largest trading partner of China, the European Union(EU) plans to formally introduce a Carbon Border Adjustment Tax on high-carbon imports starting in 2026. This policy is expected to have significant implications for China's exports. Drawing on data from the China Emission Accounts and Datasets(CEADs), the China Industrial Statistics Yearbook, and customs trade data, this study constructs an analytical framework centered on trade elasticity and carbon emission intensity to estimate the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax on China's manufacturing exports, with a focus on industryand province-specific heterogeneity. The study finds that the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax is projected to reduce China's manufacturing exports by 1.13%. At the industry level, the ferrous metal smelting and pressing industry and the non-metallic mineral products industry are the most vulnerable, accounting for 67% of the total export reduction. At the provincial level, there is an inverse relationship between the absolute reduction in export and the percentage reduction in exports. Qinghai Province is expected to experience the largest percentage decline in exports, while Guangdong Province will see the largest absolute reduction in exports. Further numerical simulations reveal that if provinces reduce the carbon emission intensity of the ferrous metal smelting and pressing industry and the non-metallic mineral products industry to the national minimum levels for these sectors, the adverse impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax on China's manufacturing exports could be mitigated by 66%. If, in addition, the carbon emission intensity of all industries in each province is reduced to the national minimum levels for their respective sectors, the negative effects of the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax could be reduced by 95%. Overall, the adverse impact of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Tax on China's manufacturing exports is within a manageable range. Provinces can effectively address the challenges posed by the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax by promoting low-carbon transitions in key industries.
[1]鲍勤,汤铃,汪寿阳,等.美国碳关税对我国经济的影响程度到底如何?——基于DCGE模型的分析[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2013, 33(2):345–353.
[2]黄凌云,李星.美国拟征收碳关税对我国经济的影响——基于GTAP模型的实证分析[J].国际贸易问题, 2010(11):93–98.
[3]李继峰,张亚雄.基于CGE模型定量分析国际贸易绿色壁垒对我国经济的影响——以发达国家对我国出口品征收碳关税为例[J].国际贸易问题, 2012(5):105–118.
[4]林伯强,李爱军.碳关税的合理性何在?[J].经济研究, 2012, 47(11):118–127.
[5]林伯强,李爱军.碳关税对发展中国家的影响[J].金融研究, 2010(12):1–15.
[6]刘斌,赵飞.欧盟碳边境调节机制对中国出口的影响与对策建议[J].清华大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 36(6):185–194, 210.
[7]栾昊,杨军.美国征收碳关税对中国碳减排和经济的影响[J].中国人口.资源与环境, 2014, 24(1):70–77.
[8]沈可挺,李钢.碳关税对中国工业品出口的影响——基于可计算一般均衡模型的评估[J].财贸经济, 2010(1):75–82, 136–137.
[9]沈可挺.碳关税争端及其对中国制造业的影响[J].中国工业经济, 2010(1):65–74.
[10]王谋,吉治璇,康文梅,等.欧盟“碳边境调节机制”要点、影响及应对[J].中国人口.资源与环境, 2021, 31(12):45–52.
[11]王有鑫.征收碳关税对中国出口贸易和国民福利的影响——基于中美贸易和关税数据的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题, 2013(7):119–127.
[12]杨曦,彭水军.碳关税可以有效解决碳泄漏和竞争力问题吗?——基于异质性企业贸易模型的分析[J].经济研究, 2017, 52(5):60–74.
[13]张友国,郑世林,周黎安,等.征税标准与碳关税对中国经济和碳排放的潜在影响[J].世界经济, 2015, 38(2):167–192.
[14] Biermann F, Brohm R. Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the USA:The Strategic Role of Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border[J].Climate Policy, 2004, 4(3):289–302.
[15] Burniaux J M, Chateau J, Duval R. Is There a Case for Carbon-Based Border Tax Adjustment? An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis[J].Applied Economics, 2013, 45(16):2231–2240.
[16] Cendra J. Can Emissions Trading Schemes Be Coupled with Border Tax Adjustments? An Analysis vis-à-vis WTO Law[J]. Review of European Community&International Environmental Law, 2006, 15(2):131–145.
[17] Dong Y, Walley J. How Large Are the Impacts of Carbon Motivated Border Tax Adjustments?[J]. Climate Change Economics, 2012, 3(1):1250001.
[18] Ismer R, Neuhoff K. Border Tax Adjustment:A Feasible Way to Support Stringent Emission Trading[J]. European Journal of Law and Economics, 2007, 24(2):137–164.
[19] Li A, Zhang A, Cai H, et al. How Large Are the Impacts of Carbon-Motivated Border Tax Adjustments on China and How to Mitigate Them?[J].Energy Policy, 2013, 63:927–934.
[20] Li A, Zhang A. Will Carbon Motivated Border Tax Adjustments Function as a Threat?[J]. Energy Policy, 2012, 47:81–90.
[21] Lin B, Li A. Impacts of Carbon Motivated Border Tax Adjustments on Competitiveness across Regions in China[J]. Energy, 2011, 36(8):5111–5118.
[22] Nielsen L. Trade and Climate Change[J]. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 2010, 7:2–17.
[23] Peterson E B, Schleich J. Economic and Environmental Effects of Border Tax Adjustments[R]. Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation,2007.
[24] Quick R.‘Border Tax Adjustment’ in the Context of Emission Trading:Climate Protection of‘Naked’ Protectionism?[J]. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 2008, 3:163–175.
[25] Soderbery A. Trade Elasticities, Heterogeneity, and Optimal Tariffs[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2018, 114:44–62.
[26] Weber R H. Border Tax Adjustment–Legal Perspective[J]. Climatic Change, 2015, 133(3):407–417.
(1)碳边境调节税又称碳关税，是发达国家为解决碳泄漏问题，保护产品竞争力以及促使产业回流，对其进口高碳产品征收的关税（林伯强和李爱军，2012；张友国等，2015；杨曦和彭水军，2017）。
(2)我国对欧盟出口额以及欧盟出口额占我国总出口额的比例数据来源于中华人民共和国海关总署，网址为http://www.customs.gov.cn/customs/302249/zfxxgk/2799825/302274/302277/302276/6325032/index.html。
(1)因篇幅所限，欧盟碳边境调节税对我国出口影响的测算方法和说明以附录1展示，见《统计研究》网站所列附件。下同。
(2)欧盟碳边境调节税的税率为欧盟碳市场价格减去该产品在产地已支付的碳价格。对于我国对欧盟出口的产品，该税率为欧盟碳市场价格减去我国碳市场价格。截至2025年3月，欧盟碳价约为68欧元/吨，我国碳价约为85元/吨，本文取b=400。为验证结果的稳健性，后续会对b取不同的值。
(1)由于数据可得性限制，本文测算结果不包含我国西藏自治区和港澳台地区以及金属制品、机械和设备修理业。
(2)因篇幅限制，本文数据处理过程以附录2展示。
(1)钢铁涉及黑色金属冶炼和压延加工业、水泥涉及非金属矿物制品业、铝涉及有色金属冶炼和压延加工业、化肥和氢涉及化学原料和化学制品制造业，我国电力行业几乎不对欧盟出口，可忽略不计。
(2)因篇幅所限，不同贸易弹性计算方法下碳边境调节税对我国制造业出口影响的结果以附表1展示。
(1)出口额减少量：■出口额减少幅度：■
(2)本文估算出2016—2021年我国制造业年均碳排放密度下降6%左右。因篇幅所限，具体计算过程以附录1展示。
(1)假设各行业碳排放密度降低c，出口额减少量变为■，出口额减少比例变为■，均为碳排放密度降低程度的线性函数。
(2)因篇幅所限，欧盟碳边境调节税对我国各省份出口影响的结果以附表2展示，不同贸易弹性计算方法下碳边境调节税对我国各省份出口影响的结果及分析以附录3展示。
(3)本文将样本省份划分为东部、中部、西部和东北四个地区。其中，东部地区包括北京、天津、河北、上海、江苏、浙江、福建、山东、广东和海南，中部地区包括山西、安徽、江西、河南、湖北和湖南，西部地区包括内蒙古、广西、重庆、四川、贵州、云南、陕西、甘肃、青海、宁夏和新疆，东北地区包括辽宁、吉林和黑龙江。
(4)东部地区出口额最高，均值为1789.38亿元，中部地区次之，均值为379.38亿元，东北和西部地区的出口额较低，均值分别为120.44亿元和157.74亿元。
(5)■
(1)因篇幅所限，出口额减少幅度与两种碳排放密度的散点图以附图2展示。
(2)因篇幅所限，基准情景与4种情景下欧盟碳边境调节税对我国各省份出口的影响以附表3展示。
基本信息:
DOI：10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/c.2025.09.004
中图分类号:F752.7;F755;F752.62;F424
引用信息:
[1]张一林,刘鹏超,李兵,等.欧盟碳边境调节税对我国制造业出口的影响及应对[J].统计研究,2025,42(09):44-55.DOI:10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/c.2025.09.004.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金重大项目“全球产业链重构背景下中国产业链的韧性与升级趋势研究”（24&ZD058）