国际合作尤其是主要经济体之间的气候合作是能否成功应对气候变化的关键。鉴此,该研究构建了包含世界三大主要经济体（中国、美国、欧盟）的两部门（绿色和非绿色生产部门）世界动态随机一般均衡模型,使用宏观经济与碳排放数据进行Bayes参数估计和模型校准,模拟中性技术与绿色技术冲击对经济-环境系统的影响,并重点分析仅在中国实施碳税政策的情景下,需求侧与供给侧补贴的传导机制;应用三方博弈模型研究国际碳税政策协同约束下的最优政策选择。结果表明：①中性技术冲击通过非绿色生产部门的资本扩张加剧了增长与排放的矛盾;绿色技术冲击则通过投资乘数效应打破了碳锁定,从而驱动低碳经济发展。②在中国实施碳税情景下,中国产出收缩;需求侧补贴小幅提升社会福利,但碳排放上升;供给侧补贴通过成本双向调节推动绿色产能扩张,造成三大主要经济体居民的福利下降,耦合绿色技术创新可实现增长与减排的双赢。③三大主要经济体的碳税博弈中,引入需求侧补贴时,博弈均衡情况下中国碳税税率为9.5%、美欧皆为11.5%,则能兼顾减排与福利增长;对绿色生产部门提供综合性生产补贴（未指定补贴资金用途）触发“零税率”囚徒困境;若将生产补贴用于绿色技术创新,则可实现竞争性合作博弈新均衡（中国和美国都是9.5%、欧盟10.5%）,推动产出和福利增长及碳减排。据此建议：①基于中国、美国和欧盟经济中绿色产业迥异的基本现实,构建差异化碳税税率协调机制。②优化碳补贴分配策略,需求侧补贴保障公平转型,生产补贴驱动增长与减排循环。③推动国际治理范式向竞争性合作转型：短期协调税率,中期共享技术,长期构建全球碳定价机制,推动气候治理与经济增长的动态平衡。
International cooperation, especially among major economies, is essential for effectively addressing climate change. This study developed a two-sector (green and non-green production sectors) global dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model, in-corporating China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU). Using macroeconomic and carbon emission data, the study conducted Bayesian estimation and calibration to simulate the impacts of both neutral and green technology shocks on the economic-en-vironmental system. The analysis focused on the transmission mechanisms of demand-side and supply-side adjustments under China's carbon tax policy scenario. Additionally, it employed a tripartite game theory model to explore optimal policy choices under internation-al carbon tax coordination constraints. The findings showed that: ① Neutral technology shocks intensified the “growth-emission” dilem-ma by expanding capital in the non-green sector, while green technology shocks overcame carbon lock-in through investment multipli-ers, fostering low-carbon economic growth. ② Under China's unilateral carbon tax scenario, China's domestic output contracted. De-mand-side subsidies marginally improved social welfare but led to higher carbon emissions. In contrast, supply-side subsidies enhanced green capacity through bidirectional cost adjustments, though they reduced household welfare across all three economies. However, when combined with green technological innovation, supply-side subsidies could create a win-win scenario, driving both economic growth and emission reductions. ③ In the tripartite carbon-tax game, the introduction of demand-side subsidies resulted in an equilibri-um with a carbon tax rate of 9.5% for China, and 11.5% for both the US and the EU, balancing emission reductions and welfare growth. Non-earmarked production subsidies for the green sector induced a “zero-tax-rate” prisoner's dilemma. However, earmarking produc-tion subsidies for green technology innovation fostered a new equilibrium with competitive cooperation (9.5% for China and the US, 10.5% for the EU), achieving both output and welfare growth while reducing carbon emissions. Based on these findings, this study rec-ommends: ① establishing a differentiated carbon-tax rate coordination mechanism tailored to the distinct realities of green industries in China, the US, and the EU; ② optimizing carbon-subsidy allocation by ensuring a fair transition with demand-side subsidies while driv-ing the growth-emission reduction cycle through supply-side subsidies, and ③ shifting international governance towards competitive co-operation—coordinating tax rates in the short term, sharing technologies in the medium term, and constructing a global carbon pricing mechanism in the long term—to achieve a dynamic balance between climate governance and economic growth.
[1] 张中祥,张钟毓. 多效应下全球气候联盟稳定性的博弈分析[J]. 管理科学学报,2024,27(9):124-144.
[2] NORDHAUS W.Climate clubs:overcoming free-riding in interna-tional climate policy[J]. American economic review,2015,105(4):1339-1370.
[3] OSTROM E.Beyond markets and states:polycentric governance of complex economic systems[J]. Transnational corporations review, 2010,2(2):1-12.
[4] 王海林,黄晓丹,赵小凡,等. 全球气候治理若干关键问题及对策[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2020,30(11):26-33.
[5] DRAKE D.Carbon tariffs:impacts on technology choice,regional competitiveness,and global emissions[R]. Boston:Harvard Busi-ness School,2011.
[6] FARROKHI F,LASHKARIPOUR A.Can trade policy mitigate cli-mate change?[J]. Econometrica,2025,93(5):1561-1599.
[7] 张丰清,周苏玉. 当前大国间气候政治博弈中的利益选择及其应然取向[J]. 社会主义研究,2010(5):127-130.
[8] JOYNER C C.Rethinking international environmental regimes: what role for partnership coalitions[J]. Journal of international law & international relations,2005,1(1/2):103-105.
[9] 董亮 .跨国气候伙伴关系治理及其对中国的启示[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2017,27(9):120-127.
[10] NYBORG K.Reciprocal climate negotiators[J]. Journal of environ-mental economics and management,2018,92:707-725.
[11] VAN DER POL T,WEIKARD H P,VAN IERLAND E. Can altru-ism stabilise international climate agreements?[J]. Ecological eco-nomics,2012,81:112-120.
[12] FINUS M,RÜBBELKE D T G. Public good provision and ancillary benefits:the case of climate agreements[J]. Environmental and re-source economics,2013,56(2):211-226.
[13] ZHANG K,LIANG Q M.Recent progress of cooperation on cli-mate mitigation:a bibliometric analysis[J]. Journal of cleaner pro-duction,2020,277:123495.
[14] 尹佳音,李大伟. 碳边境调整机制(CBAM)对中国对欧盟货物出口的影响研究[J]. 宏观经济研究,2024(11):93-108.
[15] BÖHRINGER C,FISCHER C,ROSENDAHL K E,et al. Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments[J]. Nature climate change,2022,12:22-29.
[16] CARATTINI S,KIM G,MELKADZE G,et al.Carbon taxes and tariffs,financial frictions,and international spillovers[J]. Europe-an economic review,2024,170:104883.
[17] 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.
[18] 兰天,张建国,海鹏. ACESA 背景下中国工业品贸易被动碳关税与主动碳税选择研究:基于 GTAP 模型的实证分析[J]. 软科学,2018,32(8):82-85.
[19] GU R R,GUO J,HUANG Y X,et al.Impact of the EU carbon bor-der adjustment mechanism on economic growth and resources sup-ply in the BASIC countries[J]. Resources policy,2023,85: 104034.
[20] 王金南,严刚,姜克隽,等. 应对气候变化的中国碳税政策研究[J]. 中国环境科学,2009,29(1):101-105.
[21] 高鹏飞,陈文颖. 碳税与碳排放[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版),2002,42(10):1335-1338.
[22] 蔡栋梁,闫懿,程树磊. 碳排放补贴、碳税对环境质量的影响研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2019,29(11):59-70.
[23] 赵桂芝,郭雁飞. 中国经济低碳转型与财政政策提质增效:基于减碳和增长双视角的 DSGE 模拟分析[J]. 财政研究,2024(6):71-87.
[24] ACEMOGLU D,AGHION P,BURSZTYN L,et al.The environment and directed technical change[J]. American economic review,2012, 102(1):131-166.
[25] ANNICCHIARICO B,CORREANI L,DI DIO F.Environmental policy and endogenous market structure[J]. Resource and energy economics,2018,52:186-215.
[26] HEUTEL G.How should environmental policy respond to business cycles:optimal policy under persistent productivity shocks[J]. Re-view of economic dynamics,2012,15(2):244-264.
[27] BARRAGE L.Optimal dynamic carbon taxes in a climate-economy model with distortionary fiscal policy[J]. Review of economic studies,2020,87(1):1-39.
[28] LIU Y,LU Y Y.The Economic impact of different carbon tax reve-nue recycling schemes in China:a model-based scenario analysis[J]. Applied energy,2015,141:96-105.
[29] EICHENBAUM M S,JOHANNSEN B K,REBELO S T.Monetary policy and the predictability of nominal exchange rates[J]. Re-view of economic studies,2021,88(1):192-228.
[30] FERRARI MINESSO M,PAGLIARI M S.No country is an island: international cooperation and climate change[J]. Journal of inter-national economics,2023,145:103816.
[31] 邓贵川,谢丹阳. 支付时滞、汇率传递与宏观经济波动[J]. 经济研究,2020,55(2):68-83.
[32] BENMIR G,ROMAN J.Policy interactions and the transition to clean technology[R]. London:Centre for Climate Change Econom-ics and Policy,Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the Environment,2020.
[33] 陶长琪,鲁长河. 消费污染、环保税与经济发展:基于 DSGE 模型的数值模拟[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2023,33(11):92-102.
[34] 甘天琦,周宗钰,张康宁,等. 异质性技术冲击对减污降碳协同增效的动态影响与福利分析[J]. 环境经济研究,2024,9(4):23-42.
[35] RITCHIE H,ROSADO P,ROSER M. CO2 and greenhouse gasemissions[DB/OL]. OurWorldInData. org,2023[2025-05-03]. https://ourworldindata.org/CO2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
[36] 彭红枫,邓贵川. 利率平价偏离、资本账户开放与经济波动:基于小国 DSGE 模型的分析[J]. 管理科学学报,2020,23(8):1-18.
[37] 陆前进,武磊. 开放经济动态随机一般均衡模型下最优货币政策和货币状况指数研究:基于1992—2022 年中国数据的理论和实证分析[J]. 中央财经大学学报,2024(5):35-52.
