The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ex ante studies forecast an aggregated carbon leakage ratio in a range of 5% to 25%, and studies devoted to cement and steel conclude to a leakage ratio in a range of 20% to 60%.
“These results contrast with ex ante studies, generally with CGE models (Böhringer et al., 2012) but also with sectoral partial equilibrium models (Monjon and Quirion 2011) that forecast an aggregated carbon leakage ratio in a range of 5% to 25% (Branger and Quirion, 2013b) and even more with studies devoted to the cement and steel sectors, which conclude to a leakage ratio in a range of 20% to 60%”
From Carbon Leakage and Competitiveness of Cement and Steel Industries Under the EU ETS: Much Ado About Nothing (2016) · cites this paper as Böhringer et al., 2012
Systematic CGE model cross-comparisons suggest central estimates of leakage rates for industrialized countries that range from 5% to 30%, which reflects different assumptions on the stringency of carbon pricing, the size of the abatement coalition and the magnitude of trade and fossil fuel supply elasticities.
“Systematic CGE model cross-comparisonssuch as the 29th study by the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 43 and subsequent meta-analyses of simulation studies [44][45][46] -suggest central estimates of leakage rates for industrialized countries that range from 5% to 30%, which reflects different assumptions on the stringency of carbon pricing, the size of the abatement coalition and the magnitude of trade”
From Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
These issues are of limited relevance for countries without significant exports.
“These issues are of limited relevance for countries without significant exports (100, 104).”
From Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade (2022) · cites this paper as [104]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 387
- Authors
- Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J., & Rutherford, T. F.
- Affiliations
- Colorado School of Mines (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Energy Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 34
- Pages
- S97-S110
- ISSN
- 0140-9883 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974180313
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 59.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Energy Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
- Keywords
- border carbon adjustment, unilateral climate policy, emissions leakage, competitiveness, carbon pricing, emissions trading, distributional effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
