自2018年开始，中国开始征收环境保护税，实行污染费税改革。但环境保护税对机动车等流动污染源排放暂予免征。这背后的原因是流动污染源本身具有较高的监管成本、征收成本。燃油税被认为是环境保护税在机动车问题上的最佳替代税种，它在征收上具有较高的可行性。 经历过三次燃油税税率调整，中国的燃油税税率仍没有将机动车造成的大气污染以及碳排放两项外部成本完全容纳进来。在雾霾问题爆发的背景下，提高燃油税税率是较好的解决大气污染问题的政策手段。 燃油税的提高将会对经济造成一定的影响。最为显著的是，燃油税的征收将会造成社会运行整体的成本升高，对GDP、社会福利都会造成冲击。其次，燃油税的征收会对不同能源投入结构、不同经济系统位置的行业产生不同的影响。因此，必然需要对燃油税政策的经济影响进行评估。 CGE模型能够实现对燃油税政策的减排效应及经济影响全面模拟。由于能源及环境问题的关联性，本文依托容纳进能源及环境板块的3E-CGE模型进行模拟研究。它包括生产模块、贸易模块、居民模块、政府模块、企业模块、税收模块、要素模块、均衡模块以及环境模块。为了反应出能源生产要素的重要性以及能源品之间的替代性，生产模块通过三层嵌套生产函数构建：第一层为中间投入合成束和劳动-资本合成束合成的部门产出；第二层由两个部分组成，分别为能源合成束和非能源合成束按照Lenotif函数合成的中间投入合成束，以及劳动资本按照Cobb-Douglas函数合成的劳动-资本合成束。第三层由两个部分组成，分别为煤油气电热按照CES函数合成的能源合成束，以及除去能源部门的38个非能源部门按照Leontif函数合成的非能源合成束。此外，贸易模块通过两阶段贸易决策行为构建。而环境模块通过能源品的固定排放系数以外挂的方式构建。 北京市机动车污染对大气污染的贡献度大。本文以北京市为例，通过编制2012年北京市SAM表，结合3E-CGE模型，模拟不同环节、不同税率的燃油税节能减排效应及经济影响。研究发现，在生产及进口、消费环节新增燃油税均有抑制大气污染、降低能耗的作用。生产及进口环节新增燃油税在0.2-5元/升时，CO2、NOx、SO2的下降幅度分别为0.62%-8.87%、0.98%-13.74%、0.86%-12.92%；消费环节效果弱于生产及进口环节，新增燃油税在0.2-5元/升时，CO2、NOx、SO2的下降幅度分别为0.58%-8.59%、0.9%-13.15%、0.8%-12.48%。值得注意的是，两种情景下燃油的消费有所下降，其他能源品的使用均呈上升的趋势，燃油税并不能优化能源结构。与此同时，燃油税也会对经济造成一定冲击。生产及进口环节征税将会引起GDP下降的同时消费者价格指数上升：燃油税税率每提高0.1元/升，将会造成0.55%左右的GDP下降；从0.4元/升开始，税率每提高0.6元/升，消费者价格指数相较基准情形提高0.23%。消费环节征税将会 GDP下降的同时消费者价格指数下降：燃油税税率每提高0.1元/升，将会造成0.09%左右的GDP下降，弱于生产及进口环节征税；新增税率在0.8-3元/升时，消费者价格指数相较基准情形下降0.23%，当新增税率在4-5元/升，消费者价格指数相较基准情形下降0.46%。此外，二者对不同产业均造成了不同程度的冲击，变动较大的是能源行业，其次是地方政府支出比例较大的服务业。本文认为，无论何种环节实行燃油税，都应该结合相应的产业政策，对需要扶持的产业进行补贴，进而起到优化产业结构、减小经济冲击的作用。

China started collecting environmental protection tax in 2018 and began a reform of pollutant discharge fee. However, motor vehicles and other drifting source of pollution are free from the tax because of the high cost of monitoring and supervision. It is believed that fuel tax is the best alternative of environmental protection tax for motor vehicles. After three adjustments of fuel tax rate，air pollution and carbon emission caused by vehicles are still not taken into consideration. As haze and smog problem has become more serious, raising fuel tax rate is a good policy to solve this issue. Higher fuel tax rate may affect economy. The most significant influence is that the whole cost of daily life will increase and GDP and social welfare might be impacted negatively. Secondly, it will have various effects on different industries. Thus we need to evaluate the economic influences of fuel tax policy. CGE model can simulate emission reduction and economy effects of different fuel tax rate. This paper is based on the economy-energy-environment computable general equilibrium model because of the connection between energy and environment. The model takes many factors into consideration, including commodity, production, trade, resident, government, enterprise, tax, equilibrium and environment. In order to show the importance and substitutability of energy, production module is built through 3-layer production nested function: the first layer is synthesized by intermediate inputs composite and capital composite; the second layer is made of two parts, intermediate inputs composite synthesized by energy composite and non-energy composite through Lenotif function, and energy composite synthesized by labor capital through Cobb-Douglas function; the third layer is also made of two parts, energy composite synthesized by coal, oil, gas, electricity and heat through CES function, and non-energy composite synthesized by 38 non-energy departments through Leontif function.Besides, trade module is established through two-phase trade decision behavior while environment module through fixed emission factor of energy. Motor vehicles contribute a lot to the air pollution in Beijing.This paper is devoted to the environmental and economic effects of various fuel taxes for different departments based on Beijing 3E-CGE model. Researches show that raising fuel tax rates for production& import and consumption contributes to air pollution and emission reduction. If the fuel tax on production& import rises from 0.2 to 5 yuan per liter, CO2, NOx, SO2 emission will decrease by 0.62%-8.87%, 0.98%-13.74%, 0.86%-12.92% separately. While the effects on consumption is not that distinct. If the fuel tax on consumption varies from 0.2 to 5 yuan per litre, CO2, NOx, SO2 emission will decrease by 0.58%-8.59%、0.9%-13.15%、0.8%-12.48% separately. However, tax increase may hinder economic growth. Higher tax on production& import will lead to stagflation. GDP is going to decline by 0.55% as the tax rate goes up by 0.1 yuan/litre. In addition to that, from 0.4 yuan/litre, CPI will ascend by 0.23% as tax rate goes up by 0.6 yuan/litre. Higher tax on consumption will lead to depression. GDP is going to decline by 0.09% as the tax rate goes up by 0.1 yuan/litre. Thus effects on consumption is slighter than that on production& import. When the tax rate increases by 0.8-3 yuan/litre, CPI will descend by 0.23%. While the tax rate increases by 4-5 yuan/litre, CPI will descend by 0.46%. Besides the influences on different industries also vary. Energy industry will go through most changes and service industry, which has enjoyed much government subsidy, will follow closely behind. My conclusion is that government should levy fuel taxes as well as pay subsidies to optimize industrial structure and decrease the impact on economy.