By browsing this website, you acknowledge the use of a simple identification cookie. It is not used for anything other than keeping track of your session from page to page. OK
1

The relationship between a ‘polluter pays' approach to carbon capture, regional policy and ‘just transition' employment agendas

Bookmarks
Article

Turner, Karen ; Race, Julia ; Alabi, Oluwafisayo ; Katris, Antonios ; Swales, Kim

Climate Policy

2023

23

3

366-378

decarbonization ; industrial sector ; competitiveness ; chemical industry ; labour market

United Kingdom

Industrial economics

https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2110031

English

Bibliogr.

"Policy makers in a number of nations are currently developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an industrial decarbonisation solution, linking capture potential in industry clusters to domestic or overseas offshore storage capacity. However, the design, focus and timeframe for policy support are proving challenging in countries like the UK, where industry actors are concerned about the competitiveness implications of additional operational capital costs, while government aims to offer only transitory policy support. Policy-facing research is required to understand the drivers, nature and extent of potential competitiveness loss from adopting carbon capture in specific industry and country contexts, along with the impacts of policy decisions in other countries and of possible future technology improvements. We consider the case of the UK chemicals industry, using an economy-wide computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. This highlights how macroeconomic and sectoral impacts of concern under regional, industry and climate policy agendas depend on domestic and export demand responses to changing industry prices. A crucial question is whether capture costs are similarly reflected in international prices. We identify a risk of policy commitment to ‘polluter pays' having sustained negative outcomes for capture firms, along with offshoring/leakage of jobs and GDP, and associated emissions, as demand shifts to lower cost overseas production. However, such costs could be reduced, and some capture industry gains realised, if competitors in other nations ultimately follow in bearing similar costs and particularly if ‘early mover' action enables firms to make efficiency gains and build comparative advantage in operational carbon capture."

Digital



Bookmarks