Abstract
Taxes often face public opposition, which hinders their implementation since people envision them as costs without a return. Taxes on emissions are one of the most common instruments to tackle environmental problems. If their revenues are used to subsidize renewables, and a double dividend is achieved, public opposition may decrease. Focusing solely on total emissions and total output to measure the first and the second dividend of a combination of policies may be misleading. Indeed, total emissions may increase with economic growth, but relative emissions may decrease, indicating the generation sector’s desired decarbonization. Hence, a wider group of indicators can provide a better insight into the desirability of environmental policies. Our work discusses alternative indicators for the first and the second dividends in the context of a third-generation Environmental Tax Reform (ETR) where emissions tax revenues are used to finance renewable energy sources. The results of our simulation model highlight the relevance of the choice of the indicators for each dividend. Considering alternative indicators provides a better insight into policy impacts. If emissions per output indicate the environmental dividend and consumers’ utility/welfare indicates the economic dividend, the ETR always provides a double dividend. If we choose the traditional indicators, the ETR may not seem particularly interesting. However, with alternative indicators, which still reflect crucial aspects of the environment-economy relationship, the ETR is desirable. Hence, we argue that the attractiveness of a certain ETR and its double dividend should be evaluated under a broader range of indicators.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We abstract from all unnecessary aspects (such as capital accumulation and the labor market) to highlight key features regarding the effects of natural resource substitution on the economy and the environment.
Thus, it is not our objective to discuss the Ricardian equivalence according to which, for a given spending path, the substitution of debt by taxes does not affect aggregate demand nor interest rates. That is, to a certain extent, the public debt has no wealth effect, and for the economy, the financing of public spending by debt or taxation is equivalent. However, the verification of equivalence requires a restrictive set of assumptions, which are out of this paper’s scope.
References
Abolhosseini, S., & Almas, H. (2014). The main support mechanisms to finance renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 876–885.
Afonso, O. (2012). Scale-independent North-South trade effects on the technological knowledge bias and on wage inequality. Review of World Economics, 148, 181–207.
Albaek, S. (2013). Consumer welfare in EU competition policy. In C. Heide-Jørgensen, C. Bergqvist, U. Neergaard, & S. T. Poulsen (Eds.), Aims and values in competition law (pp. 67–88). Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.
Almeida, T., Cruz, L., Barata, E., & García-Sánchez, I. (2017). Economic growth and environmental impacts: An analysis based on composite index of environmental damage. Ecological Indicators, 76, 119–130.
Bohringer, C., Keller, A., & van der Werf, E. (2013). Are green hopes too rosy? Employment and welfare impacts of renewable energy promotion. Energy Economics, 36, 277–285.
Bosquet, B. (2000). Environmental tax reform: Does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 34, 19–32.
Bovenberg, A. (1999). Green tax reforms and the double dividend: An updated reader’s guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 6, 421–443.
Everett, T., Ishwaran, M., Ansaloni, G., & Rubin, A. (2010). Economic growth and the environment, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Evidence and Analysis Series, Paper 2.
Freire-González, J. (2018). Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40, 194–223.
Gago, A., Labandeira, X., & López-Otero, X. (2014). A panorama on energy taxes and green tax reforms. Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, 208(1), 145–190.
Galinato, G., & Yoder, J. (2010). An integrated tax-subsidy policy for carbon emission reduction. Resources and Energy Economics, 32, 310–326.
Goulder, L. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader’s guide. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 157–183.
International Energy Agency. (2018). Global Energy & CO2 status Report.
Kalkuhl, M., Edenhofer, O., & Lessmann, K. (2013). Renewable energy subsidies: Second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resources and Energy Economics, 35, 217–234.
Liddle, B., Smyth, R., & Zhang, X. (2020). Time-varying income and price elasticities for energy demand: Evidence from a middle-income panel. Energy Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104681.
Lin, C., & Zhang, W. (2011). Market power and shadow prices for nonrenewable resources: an empirical dynamic model. Annual Meeting, July 24–26, 2011, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
Melamed, A., & Petit, N. (2019). The misguided assault on the consumer welfare standard in the age of platform markets. Review of Industrial Organization, 2019(54), 741–774.
NEA; IEA; OECD. (2015). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2015 Edition. Nuclear Energy Agency, International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , Paris.
Patuelli, R., Nijkamp, P., & Pels, E. (2005). Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment. Ecological Economics, 55(4), 564–583.
Pearce, D. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. The Economic Journal, 101(407), 938–948.
Pereira, R., & Pereira, A. (2019). Financing a renewable energy feed-in tariff with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions: A dynamic multi-sector general equilibrium analysis for Portugal. Green Finance, I(3), 279–296.
Silva, S., Soares, I., & Afonso, O. (2013a). Economic and environmental effects under resource scarcity and substitution between renewable and nonrenewable resources. Energy Policy, 54(C), 113–124.
Silva, S., Soares, I., & Afonso, O. (2013b). Economic growth and polluting resources: Market equilibrium and optimal policies. Economic Modelling, 30, 825–834.
Skolrud, T., & Galinato, G. (2017). Welfare implications of the renewable fuel standard with an integrated tax-subsidy policy. Energy Economics, 62, 291–301.
Yi, J., Zhao, D., Hu, X., & Cai, G. (2016). Na integrated CO2 tax and subsidy policy for low carbon electricity in Guangdong, China. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 11(1), 44–50.
Acknowledgements
This research has been financed by Portuguese public funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., in the framework of the Project UID/ECO/04105/2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silva, S., Soares, I. & Afonso, O. Assessing the double dividend of a third-generation environmental tax reform with resource substitution. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 15145–15156 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01290-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01290-7