온실가스 규제를 위한 방안:탄소세인가? 배출권거래제인가?

초록

Countries around the world are looking for ways to correspond to global warming. Some representative examples are emission trading and carbon tax. Today, a number of countries are seem to show more interest to emission trading than carbon tax. Behind this, we cannot ignore the fact the Kyoto Protocol is assuming emission trading as an important mean to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gas emission. Perhaps for this reason, Korea is also discussing global warming issues mainly focusing on emission trading. According to the Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse-Gas Emission Permits enacted in May 14, 2012, in Korea, emission trading will take effect in 2015. The reason why emission trading was introduced before carbon tax is the belief that the former will suffer less political resistance than the latter. However, in the aspects of simplicity, comprehensiveness of coverage, revenue, predictability in cost, signaling, and equity, it can be assessed that carbon tax is much more superior to emission trading. In this sense, it seems more logical to say that carbon tax should be implemented first. Even if emission trading is already initiated first, there is a need to introduce carbon tax for supplementation. The Framework Act on Low Carbon Emissions and Green Growth does not completely exclude carbon tax as it mentions there is the need to reorganize taxation so that economic expenses incurred by emission of greenhouse gases can be reflected reasonably in market prices. There is also the possibility that discussions on carbon tax may come in rapid currents. Among others, in Europe, where emission trading is taken effect, suspicions are spreading. As the Kyoto Protocol is now perceived as merely a titular thing, there is the possibility the concept of carbon tax would rise as a substitute to emission trading. Korea might have to assume obligations to reduce its amount of greenhouse gas in the post-Kyoto Protocol system. In order to fulfill the promise Korea made with the international community, Korea needs to find secondary means to supplement emission trading. Moreover, transportation, energy, and environment tax that drew tax from oil and gasoline will be abolished by 2015. Carbon tax can be an attractive alternative for the current government which intends to provide more welfare without increasing taxation on the middle class and the lower class. All these elements can function as positive drivers for introducing carbon tax to Korea.

키워드