中文摘要
一个寻求减少温室气体排放的辖区，应当采用针对化石燃料消费的需求侧气候政策吗？还是应当引入针对开采的供给侧政策？我的分析指向政策组合，而非非此即彼的选择。将标准的需求侧碳排放定价与供给侧碳开采定价相结合，可以缓解排放向未受监管辖区“泄漏”的问题。排放定价通过降低国外的化石燃料价格引发泄漏；开采定价则抵消这一效应。然而，实践中的供给侧气候政策并未广泛地对开采进行定价，而是仅着眼于阻止对化石燃料基础设施的投资，因而缺乏效率。为减少碳需求，支持清洁能源是排放定价的一种替代方案。我强调，输电规划和公用事业治理改革对于释放清洁能源资源的潜力至关重要；我也着重阐述由公共部门支持清洁能源研发的理由，包括通过绿色产业政策提供支持，以减少国内以及国外的碳排放。最后，我讨论分配后果。在国内，碳定价与清洁能源补贴具有截然不同的分配特征。在全球层面，碳开采定价会损害同时也是化石燃料进口国的低收入国家，不过，也有一些低收入化石燃料出口国会从中受益。
Abstract
Should a jurisdiction seeking to cut greenhouse gas emissions use demand-side climate policies that target fossil fuel consumption? Or should it introduce supply-side policies that target extraction? My analysis points to a policy portfolio rather than an either/or choice. ``Leakage'' of emissions to unregulated jurisdictions can be mitigated by combining standard demand-side carbon emissions pricing with supply-side pricing of carbon extraction. Emissions pricing drives leakage by lowering fossil fuel prices abroad; extraction pricing counteracts this effect. Supply-side climate policies in practice, however, do not broadly price extraction but instead narrowly foreclose investments in fossil fuel infrastructure and are thus inefficient. To reduce carbon demand, an alternative to emissions pricing is support for clean energy. I emphasize reforms to transmission planning and utility governance as crucial for unlocking clean energy resources' potential, and I highlight the case for publicly supporting clean energy R&D, including green industrial policy, to reduce carbon emissions not just at home but also abroad. I close by discussing distributional consequences. Domestically, carbon pricing and clean energy subsidies have sharply different distributional profiles. Globally, carbon extraction pricing would harm low-income countries that are also fossil fuel importers, though there also exist low-income fossil fuel exporters that would benefit.