Research shows that carbon taxes do often reduce emissions.[7] Many economists argue that carbon taxes are the most efficient (lowest cost) way totackle climate change.[8][9] As of 2019[update], carbon taxes have either been implemented or are scheduled for implementation in 25 countries.[10] 46 countries have put some form ofprice on carbon, either through carbon taxes orcarbon emission trading schemes.[11]
Some experts point out that a carbon tax can negatively affect public welfare, tending to hit low- and middle-income households the hardest and making their necessities more expensive (for instance, the tax might drive up prices for, say, petrol and electricity[12]). Alternatively, the tax can be too conservative, making "comparatively small dents in overall emissions".[13] To make carbon taxes fairer, policymakers can try to redistribute the revenue generated from carbon taxes to low-income groups by various fiscal means.[14][15] Such a policy initiative becomes acarbon fee and dividend, rather than a plain tax.[16]
A carbon tax as well as carbon emission trading is used within thecarbon price concept. Two common economic alternatives to carbon taxes are tradable permits withcarbon credits andsubsidies.
Carbon dioxide is one of several heat-trapping greenhouse gases (others includemethane andwater vapor) emitted as a result of human activities. Thescientific consensus is that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primarycause of climate change,[17] and that carbon dioxide is the most important of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases.[18] Worldwide, 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced by human activity annually.[19] The physical effect of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured as a change in the Earth-atmosphere system's energy balance – theradiative forcing of CO2.[20] Different greenhouse gases have different physical properties: theglobal warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes ofcarbon dioxide equivalent.
Carbon taxes are designed to reducegreenhouse gas emissions by increasing prices of the fossil fuels that emit them when burned. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivizes making them lesscarbon-intensive.[1]
A carbon tax is a form of pollution tax.[21]David Gordon Wilson first proposed this type of tax in 1973.[22] Unlike classiccommand and control regulations, which explicitly limit or prohibit emissions by each individual polluter,[23] a carbon tax aims to allow market forces to determine the most efficient way to reduce pollution.[24] A carbon tax is anindirect tax—a tax on a transaction—as opposed to adirect tax, which taxes income. Carbon taxes are price instruments since they set a price rather than an emission limit.[25] In addition to creating incentives for energy conservation, a carbon tax putsrenewable energy such aswind,solar andgeothermal on a more competitive footing.
In economic theory, pollution is considered anegative externality, a negative effect on a third party not directly involved in a transaction, and is a type ofmarket failure. To confront the issue, economistArthur Pigou proposed taxing the goods (in this case hydrocarbon fuels), that were the source of the externality (CO 2) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the goods to society, thereby internalizing the production costs. A tax on a negative externality is called aPigovian tax, which should equal the cost.[26]
Within Pigou's framework, the changes involved are marginal, and the size of the externality is assumed to be small enough not to distort the economy.[27] Climate change is claimed to result in catastrophe (non-marginal) changes.[28][29] "Non-marginal" means that the impact could significantly reduce the growth rate in income and welfare. The amount of resources that should be devoted to climate change mitigation is controversial.[28] Policies designed to reduce carbon emissions could have a non-marginal impact, but are asserted to not be catastrophic.[30]
The design of a carbon tax involves two primary factors: the level of the tax, and the use of the revenue.[31] The former is based on thesocial cost of carbon (SCC), which attempts to calculate the numeric cost of theexternalities of carbon pollution. The precise number is the subject of debate in environmental and policy circles. A higher SCC corresponds with a higher evaluation of the costs of carbon pollution on society.Stanford University scientists have estimated the social cost of carbon to be upwards of $200 per ton.[32] More conservative estimates pin the cost at around $50.[33][34]
The use of the revenue is another subject of debate in carbon tax proposals.[31] A government may use revenue to increase its discretionary spending, or address deficits. However, such proposals often run the risk of beingregressive, and sparking backlash among the public due to an increased cost of energy associated with such taxes.[35] To avoid this and increase the popularity of a carbon tax, a government may make the carbon tax revenue-neutral.[36][37] This can be done by reducing income tax proportionate to the level of the carbon tax, or by returning carbon tax revenues to citizens as a dividend.[38]
Carbon leakage happens when the regulation of emissions in one country/sector pushes those emissions to other places that with less regulation.[39] Leakage effects can be both negative (i.e., increasing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions) and positive (reducing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions).[40] Negative leakages, which are desirable, can be referred to as "spill-over".[41]
According to one study, short-term leakage effects need to be judged against long-term effects.[42]: 28 A policy that, for example, establishes carbon taxes only in developed countries might leak emissions to developing countries. However, a desirable negative leakage could occur due to reduced demand for coal, oil, and gas in developed countries, lowering prices. This could allow developing countries to substitute oil or gas for coal, lowering emissions. In the long-run, however, if less polluting technologies are delayed, this substitution might have no long-term benefit.
Carbon leakage is central toclimate policy, given the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework and the review of the European Union's third carbon leakage list.[43]
Research shows that carbon taxes effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[7][48][49] Most economists assert that carbon taxes are the most efficient and effective way to curb climate change, with the least adverse economic effects.[50][51][52][9][53][54]
One study found that Sweden's carbon tax successfully reduced carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 11%.[48] A 2015 British Columbia study found that the taxes reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 5–15% while having negligible overall economic effects.[49] A 2017 British Columbia study found that industries on the whole benefited from the tax and "small butstatistically significant 0.74 percent annual increases in employment" but that carbon-intensive and trade-sensitive industries were adversely affected.[55] A 2020 study of carbon taxes in wealthy democracies showed that carbon taxes had not limited economic growth.[56]
Carbon taxes appear to not adversely affect employment or GDP growth in Europe.[57] Their economic impact ranges from zero to modest positive.[57]
A number of studies have found that in the absence of an increase in social benefits and tax credits, a carbon tax would hit poor households harder than rich households.[58][59][60][61]Gilbert E. Metcalf disputed that carbon taxes would beregressive in the US.[62]
There is a debate about the relation betweencarbon pricing (likecarbon emission trading and carbon tax) andclimate justice. Carbon pricing can be adjusted to some principles of climate justice likepolluters pay.[63] Many proponents of climate justice object to carbon pricing. To close the gap between the two concepts, carbon pricing could put a cap on emissions, remove pollution from underserved communities, and justly divide revenues.[64]
Since carbon taxation was first proposed, numerous economists have described its strengths as a means of reducing CO2 pollution. This tax has been praised as "a far better way to control pollution than the present method of specific regulation."[65] It has also been lauded for its market based simplicity. This includes a description as "the most efficient way to guide the decisions of producers and consumers", since "carbon emissions have an 'unpriced' societal cost in terms of their deleterious effects on the earth's climate."[66]
However, carbon taxes have been opposed by a substantial proportion of the public. They have also been rejected in several elections, and in some cases reversed as opposition increased. One response has been to specifically allocate carbon tax revenues back to the public in order to garner support.[67]Citizens' Climate Lobby is an international organization with over 500 chapters.[68] It advocates for carbon tax legislation in the form of a progressivefee and dividend structure. NASA climatologistJames E. Hansen has also spoken in favor of a revenue neutral carbon fee.[69]
Since 2019 over 3,500 U.S. economists have signedThe Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends.[70] This statement describes the benefits of a U.S. carbon tax along with suggestions for how it could be developed. One recommendation is to return revenues generated by a tax to the general public. The statement was originally signed by 45Nobel Prize winning economists, former chairs of theFederal Reserve, former chairs of theCEA, and former secretaries of theTreasury Department.[71][72] It has been recognized as a historic example of consensus amongst economists.[73]
Ben Ho, professor of economics atVassar College, has argued that "while carbon taxes are part of the optimal portfolio of policies to fight climate change, they are not the most important part."[74]
In some instances knowledge about how carbon tax revenues are used can affect public support. Dedicating revenues to climate projects and compensating low income housing have been found to be popular uses of revenue.[75] However, providing information about specific revenue uses in countries that have implemented carbon taxes has been shown to have limited effectiveness in increasing public support.[67]
A 2021 poll conducted byGlobeScan on 31 countries and territories found that 62 percent on average are supportive of a carbon tax, while only 33 percent are opposed to a carbon tax. In 28 of the 31 countries and territories listed in the poll, a majority of their populations are supportive of a carbon tax.[76]
Carbon emission trading (also calledcap and trade) is another approach. Emission levels are limited and emission permits traded among emitters. The permits can be issued via government auctions or by offered without charge based on existing emissions (grandfathering). Auctions raise revenues that can be used to reduce other taxes or to fund government programs.[77] Variations include setting price-floor and/or price-ceiling for permits.[25] A carbon tax can be combined with trading.[42]
A cap with grandfathered permits can have an efficiency advantage since it applies to all industries. Cap and trade provides an equal incentive for all producers at themargin to reduce their emissions. This is an advantage over a tax that exempts or has reduced rates for certain sectors.[77]
Both carbon taxes and trading systems aim to reduce emissions by creating a price for emitting CO2.[78] In the absence of uncertainty both systems will result in theefficient market quantity and price of CO2.[78][79] When the environmental damage and therefore the appropriate tax of each unit of CO2 cannot be accurately calculated, a permit system may be more advantageous.[79] In the case of uncertainty regarding the costs of CO2 abatement for firms, a tax is preferable.[79][78][80]
Permit systems regulate total emissions. In practice the limit has often been set so high that permit prices are not significant.[78] In the first phase of theEuropean Union Emissions Trading System,[81][78][80] firms reduced their emissions to their allotted quantity without the purchase of any additional permits.[78] This drove permit prices to nearly zero two years later, crashing the system and requiring reforms that would eventually appear in EUETS Phase 3.[78][82]
The distinction between carbon taxes and permit systems can get blurred when hybrid systems are allowed. A hybrid sets limits on price movements, potentially softening the cap. When the price gets too high, the issuing authority issues additional permits at that price. A price floor may be breached when emissions are so low that no one needs to buy a permit.[83] EconomistGilbert Metcalf has proposed such a system, the Emissions Assurance Mechanism,[84] and the idea, in principle, has been adopted by theClimate Leadership Council.[85]
James E. Hansen argued in 2009 that emissions trading would only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow business-as-usual for the chief carbon-emitting industries.[86][87]
Carbon offsetting is acarbon trading mechanism that enables entities to compensate for offsetgreenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credit or offset credit, which account for the net climate benefits that one entity brings to another. After certification by a government or independent certification body, credits can be traded between entities. One carbon credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric tonne ofcarbon dioxide or itscarbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e).
Two related taxes are emissions taxes andenergy taxes. An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge, or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas,[8] while an energy tax is applied to the fuels themselves.
In terms ofclimate change mitigation, a carbon tax is not a perfect substitute for an emissions tax.[94] For example, a carbon tax encourages reduced fuel use, but it does not encourage emissions reduction such ascarbon capture and storage.
Energy taxes increase the price of energy regardless of emissions.[94]: 416 Anad valorem energy tax is levied according to the energy content of a fuel or the value of an energy product, which may or may not be consistent with the emitted greenhouse gas amounts and their respectiveglobal warming potentials. Studies indicate that to reduce emissions by a certain amount,ad valorem energy taxes would be more costly than carbon taxes.[5] However, although greenhouse gas emissions are an externality, using energy services may result in other negative externalities, e.g.,air pollution not covered by the carbon tax (such asammonia orfine particles). A combined carbon-energy tax may therefore be better at reducing air pollution than a carbon tax alone.[citation needed]
Any of these taxes can be combined with arebate, where the money collected by the tax is returned to qualifying parties, taxing heavy emitters and subsidizing those that emit less carbon.
Because carbon taxes only target carbon dioxide, they do not target other greenhouse gasses, such as methane, which have a greater warming potential.[15]
Many countries tax fuel directly; for example, the UK imposes ahydrocarbon oil duty directly on vehicle hydrocarbon oils, including petrol anddiesel fuel.
While a direct tax sends a clear signal to the consumer, its efficiency at influencing consumers' fuel use has been challenged for reasons including:[95]
Possible delays of a decade or more as inefficient vehicles are replaced by newer models and the older models filter through the fleet.
Political pressures that deter policymakers from increasing taxes.
Limited relationship between consumer decisions on fuel economy and fuel prices. Other efforts, such as fuel efficiency standards, or changing income tax rules on taxable benefits, may be more effective.
The historical use offuel taxes as a source of general revenue, given fuel's lowprice elasticity, which allows higher rates without reducing fuel volumes. In these circumstances, the policy rational may be unclear.
Vehicle fuel taxes may reduce the "rebound effect" that occurs when vehicle efficiency improves. Consumers may make additional journeys or purchase heavier and more powerful vehicles, offsetting the efficiency gains.[96]
A 2018 survey of leading economists found that 58% of the surveyed economists agreed with the assertion, "Carbon taxes are a better way to implement climate policy than cap-and-trade," 31% stated that they had no opinion or that it was uncertain, but none of the respondents disagreed.[52]
In a review study in 1996 the authors concluded that the choice between an international quota (cap) system, or an international carbon tax, remained ambiguous.[94]: 430 Another study in 2012 compared a carbon tax, emissions trading, and command-and-control regulation at the industry level, concluding that market-based mechanisms would perform better than emission standards in achieving emission targets without affecting industrial production.[97]
Indirect carbon prices, such as fuel taxes, are much more common than carbon taxes. In 2021, OECD reported that 67 of the 71 countries it assessed had some form of fuel tax. Only 39 had carbon taxes or ETSs. However, the use of carbon taxes is growing more quickly. In addition, several countries plan to further strengthen existing carbon taxes in the coming years, including Singapore, Canada and South Africa.[99]
Current carbon price policies, including carbon taxes, are still considered insufficient to create the kinds of changes in emissions that would be consistent with Paris Agreement goals. The International Monetary Fund, OECD, and others have stated that current fossil fuel prices generally fail to reflect environmental impacts.[99]
This section'sfactual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(May 2019)
In Europe, many countries have imposed energy taxes or energy taxes based partly on carbon content.[5] These include Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. None of these countries have been able to introduce a uniform carbon tax for fuels in all sectors.[100] Denmark is the first country to includelivestock emissions in their carbon tax system.[101]
During the 1990s, a carbon/energy tax was proposed at the EU level but failed due to industrial lobbying.[102] In 2010, the European Commission considered implementing a pan-European minimum tax on pollution permits purchased under theEuropean Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in which the proposed new tax would be calculated in terms of carbon content.[103] The suggested rate of €4 to €30 per tonne of CO2.[104]
In 1997,Costa Rica imposed a 3.5 percent carbon tax on hydrocarbon fuels.[105] A portion of the proceeds go to the "Payment for Environmental Services" (PSA) program which gives incentives to property owners to practice sustainable development and forest conservation.[106] Approximately 11% of Costa Rica's national territory is protected by the plan.[107] The program now pays out roughly $15 million a year to around 8,000 property owners.[108]
In the2008 Canadian federal election, a carbon tax proposed byLiberal Party leaderStéphane Dion, known as the Green Shift, became a central issue. It would have been revenue-neutral, balancing increased taxation on carbon with rebates. However, it proved to be unpopular and contributed to the Liberal Party's defeat, earning the lowest vote share sinceConfederation.[109][110][111][112] The Conservative party won the election by promising to "develop and implement a North American-widecap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015".[113]
As of September 2020, seven of thirteen Canadian provinces and territories use the federal carbon tax while three have developed their own carbon tax programs.[116]
In December 2020, the federal government released an updated plan with aCA$15 per tonne per year increase in the carbon pricing, reachingCA$95 per tonne in 2025 andCA$170 per tonne in 2030.[117]
Quebec became the first province to introduce a carbon tax.[118][119] The tax was to be imposed on energy producers starting 1 October 2007, with revenue collected used for energy-efficiency programs. The tax rate for gasoline is $CDN0.008 per liter, or aboutCA$3.50 per tonne ofCO 2 equivalent.[120]
The Liberal government claimed 80% of Canadians were receiving more money back via a carbon rebate but the tax was unpopular with many Canadians and became a political issue.[121][122] In 2023, theOfficial Opposition (Canada) refused to support a free trade bill between Canada and the Ukraine that added a new environmental chapter to "promote carbon pricing." Liberal Trade MinisterMary Ng stated, “We should applaud the Ukrainians for being able to negotiate an agreement and also fight climate change." Liberal House leader,Karina Gould, argued the Tories were "abandoning Ukraine and not taking climate change seriously" and accused them of "American-style, right-wing politics."Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Opposition, called the carbon tax stipulation "cruel" and stated, "It is disgusting, that Trudeau’s ideological obsession with taxing working-class people, seniors and suffering families has come ahead of what should have been a free trade agreement."[123]
By the end of 2024, opinion polls showed the ruling Trudeau Liberals were 20 points behind theConservative Party of Canada, which was using the slogan "Axe the Tax" in their platform.[124] Many Liberals, worried about projected losses in the 2025 federal election, pushed for Justin Trudeau to resign, which he eventually announced on January 6, 2025. The Party elected their economic advisor,Mark Carney, and within a few hours of being sworn in as Canada's 24th prime minister on March 14, 2025, Carney signed a declaration ending the consumer carbon tax and the rebate. Carney stated in his platform that "further measures to make up for the lost impact of the consumer carbon tax" would be implemented.[125][126] Alberta PremierDaniel Smith warned of forthcoming increased industrial carbon taxes, which would be passed onto consumers without a rebate program in effect.[127]
Estimated effect of a carbon tax on sources of United States electrical generation (as of 2012)
A national carbon tax in the U.S. has been repeatedly proposed, but never enacted. For instance, on 23 July 2018, RepresentativeCarlos Curbelo (R-FL) introduced H.R. 6463,[128] the "MARKET CHOICE Act", a proposal for a carbon tax in which revenue is used to bolster American infrastructure and environmental solutions.[129] The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, but did not become law.[130]
A number of organizations are currently advancing national carbon tax proposals. To address concerns from conservatives that a carbon tax would grow government and increase cost of living, recent proposals have centered around revenue-neutrality.[131][36] TheCitizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), republicEn[132] (formerly E&EI), theClimate Leadership Council (CLC), and Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD) support a revenue-neutral carbon tax with a border adjustment. The latter two organizations advocate for a specific framework called the Baker-ShultzCarbon Dividends Plan, which has gained national bipartisan traction since its announcement in 2017.[133][134] The central principle is a gradually rising carbon tax in which all revenues are rebated as equal dividends to the American people.[135] This plan is co-authored by (and named after) Republican elder-statesmenJames Baker andGeorge Shultz.[136] It is also supported by companies includingMicrosoft,Pepsico,First Solar,American Wind Energy Association,Exxon Mobil,BP, andGeneral Motors.[137][138]
^Bashmakov, I.; et al. (2001). "6.2.2.2.1 Collection Point and Tax Base". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.).Policies, Measures, and Instruments. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: GRID-Arendal website. Archived fromthe original on 28 December 2013. Retrieved8 April 2011.
^abGupta, S.; et al. (2007). "13.2.1.2 Taxes and charges".Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metzet al. Eds.). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived fromthe original on 29 October 2010. Retrieved18 March 2010.
^Forster, P.; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; et al. (2007). "2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing". In Solomon, S. D.; et al. (eds.).Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived fromthe original on 29 October 2010. Retrieved25 August 2010.
^Groosman, Britt."2500 Pollution Tax"(PDF).Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Edward Elgar and the University of Ghent. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 1 December 2001. Retrieved2 February 2014.
^Zhang, Kun; Wang, Qian; Liang, Qiao-Mei; Chen, Hao (1 May 2016). "A bibliometric analysis of research on carbon tax from 1989 to 2014".Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.58:297–310.doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.089.ISSN1364-0321.
^Yamazaki, Akio (1 May 2017). "Jobs and climate policy: Evidence from British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax".Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.83:197–216.doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2017.03.003.ISSN0095-0696.S2CID157293760.
^abcdefgJacobsen, Mark. "Environmental Economics Lecture 6–7." UCSD Econ 131. Econ 131 Lecture, 20 October 2016, San Diego, UCSD.
^abc"Which Is Better: Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade?" Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics, 21 March 2014, London School of Economics/GranthamInstitute/faqs/which-is-better-carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/.
^ab"Cap and Trade vs. Taxes." Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 24 October 2017, www.c2es.org/document/cap-and-trade-vs-taxes/.
^"EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)." Icapcarbonaction.com, International Carbon Action Partnership, 10 October 2017, icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems[]=43
^"EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)." Icapcarbonaction.com, International Carbon Action Partnership, 10 October 2017, icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems[]=43.
^Burtraw, Dallas; Palmer, Karen; Kahn, Danny (1 September 2010). "A symmetric safety valve".Energy Policy. Special Section on Carbon Emissions and Carbon Management in Cities with Regular Papers.38 (9):4921–4932.Bibcode:2010EnPol..38.4921B.doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.068.ISSN0301-4215.
^Lu, Yujie; Zhu, Xinyuan; Cui, Qingbin (2012). "Effectiveness and equity implications of carbon policies in the United States construction industry".Building and Environment.49. Elsevier Ltd.:259–269.Bibcode:2012BuEnv..49..259L.doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.002.
^Andersen, Prof. Mikael Skou (2010)."Europe's experience with carbon-energy taxation".Sapiens.3 (2).Archived from the original on 26 August 2011. Retrieved24 August 2011.See. Burgers, Irene J., and Stefan E. Weishaar.Designing Carbon taxes is not an easy task: legal perspectives. No. 559. WIFO Working Papers, 2018.
.png)
