Mitigation costs, distributional effects, and ancillary benefits of carbon policies in the Nordic countries, the U.K., and Ireland

  • Brita Bye
  • Snorre Kverndokk
  • Knut Einar Rosendahl


This paper provides a survey of top-downmodelling analyses of carbon (C) abatementmitigation costs, distributional effectsand ancillary benefits in the Nordiccountries, the U.K. and Ireland. Specialemphasis is placed on the effects ofrevenue recycling and tax exemptions.According to the analyses, modestemissions reductions can be met withoutsubstantial costs for the countriesstudied, and a strong double dividend isfound in some analyses. The gross domesticproduct (GDP) or welfare effects are mostlyin the range of –0.4 and 1.2 percent whenC emissions are reduced by 20–30 per cent.Lowest costs are obtained without taxexemptions and with tax revenues used toreduce distortionary taxes. Ancillarybenefits are mostly in the range35–80/MgC-1, i.e., about the same order ofmagnitude as the mitigation costs.Distributional effects are mostlyregressive, unless the tax revenues aredistributed in lump-sum fashion with equaltransfers to each household.

ancillary benefits distributional effects double dividend global warming mitigation costs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaserud, M.: 1996, 'Costs and benefits of climate policies: An integrated economy-energyenvironment model approach for Norway', in B. Madsen, C. Jensen-Butler, J.B. Mortensen and A.M. Bruun Christensen (eds.), Modelling the Economy and the Environment, Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Aasness, J., Bye, T. and Mysen, H.T.: 1996, 'Welfare effects of emission taxes in Norway', Energy Econ. 18(4), 335–346.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, F.M., Jacobsen, H.K., Morthorst, P.E., Olsen, A., Rasmussen, M., Thomsen, T. and Trier, P.: 1998, 'EMMA: En energi-og miljørelateret satellitmodel til ADAM' ('EMMA an energy an environmental related satellite model to ADAM'), Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift 136(3), 333–349.Google Scholar
  4. Auerbach, A.: 1989, 'The deadweight loss from “non-neutral” capital income taxation', J. Publ. Econ. 4, 1–36.Google Scholar
  5. Baranzini, A., Goldemberg, J. and Speck, S.: 2000, 'A future for carbon taxes', Ecol. Econ. 32(3), 395–412.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, T.: 1997, 'Taxing pollution instead of jobs: Towards more employment without more inflation through fiscal reform in the UK', in T. O'Riordan (ed.), Ecotaxation, Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Barker, T., Baylis, S. and Madsen, P.: 1993a, 'A UK carbon/energy tax. The macroeconomic effects', Energy Policy 21(3), 296–308.Google Scholar
  8. Barker, T., Johnstone, N. and O'shea, T.: 1993b, The CEC Carbon/Energy Tax and Secondary Transport-Related Benefits, Energy-Environment-Economy Modelling Discussion Paper No. 5, Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Barker, T. and Johnstone, N.: 1993, 'Equity and efficiency in policies to reduce carbon emissions in the domestic sector', Energy&Environment 4(4), 335–361.Google Scholar
  10. Barker, T. and Köhler, J.: 1998, Equity and Ecotax Reform in the EU: Achieving a 10% Reduction in CO 2 Emissions using Excise Duties, Environmental Fiscal Reform Working Paper No. 10, University of Cambridge, U.K..Google Scholar
  11. Bergman, L.: 1991, 'General equilibrium effects of environmental policy: a CGE-modelling approach, environmental and resource economics', 1(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
  12. Bergman, L.: 1995, 'Sectoral differentiation as a substitute for international coordination of carbon taxes: A case study of Sweden', in J. Braden and T. Ulen (eds.), Environmental Policy with Political and Economic Integration, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J.,1994: The Wage Curve, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bohm, P., 1998: 'Comment on M. Hoel, “Emission taxes versus other environmental taxes”', Scand. J. Econ. 100, 109–112.Google Scholar
  15. Bosquet, B.: 2000, 'Environmental tax reform: Does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence', Ecol. Econ. 34(1), 19–32.Google Scholar
  16. Bovenberg, A.L. and de Mooij, R.: 1994, 'Environmental levies and distortionary taxation', Amer. Econ. Rev. 84(4), 1085–1089.Google Scholar
  17. Bovenberg, A.L. and van der Ploeg, F.: 1998, 'Consequences of environmental tax reform for unemployment and welfare', Envir. Res. Econ. 12(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
  18. Brekke, K.A. and Gravingsmyhr, H.A.: 1994, Adjusting NNP for Instrumental or Defensive Expenditure, Discussion Papers 134, Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  19. Brendemoen, A. and Vennemo, H.: 1994, 'A climate treaty and the Norwegian economy: A CGE assessment', Energy J. 15(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  20. Brännlund, R. and Gren, I.-M.: 1999, 'Green taxes in Sweden: A partial equilibrium analysis of the carbon tax and the tax on nitrogen in fertilizers', in R. Brännlund and I.-M. Gren (eds.), Green Taxes – Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence from Scandinavia, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  21. Bye, B.: 2000a, 'Environmental tax reform and producer foresight: An intertemporal computable general equilibrium analysis', J. Policy Model. 22(6), 719–752.Google Scholar
  22. Bye, B.: 2000b, 'Labour market rigidities and environmental tax reforms:Welfare effects of different regimes', in G.W. Harrison et al. (eds.), Using Dynamic General Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 259–294.Google Scholar
  23. Bye, B.: 2002, 'Taxation, unemployment and growth: Dynamic welfare effects of “green” policies', J. Envir. Econ. & Manag. 45, 1–19.Google Scholar
  24. Bye, B. and Nyborg, K.: 1999, The Welfare Effects of Carbon Policies: Grandfathered Quotas versus Differentiated Taxes, Discussion Papers 261 (revised version), Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  25. EEA: 1996, Environmental Taxes: Implementation and Environmental Effectiveness, Environmental Issues Series no. 1, Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency.Google Scholar
  26. EEA: 2000, Environmental Taxes: Recent Developments in Tools for Integration, Environmental Issues Series no. 18, Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency.Google Scholar
  27. ECON: 1997, Avgiftenes rolle i klimapolitikken (The Role of Taxes in the Climate Policy), ECONrapport nr. 60/97, Oslo, ECON.Google Scholar
  28. Ekins, P.: 1996, 'How large a carbon tax is justified by the secondary benefits of CO2 abatement?', Res. Energy Econ. 18(2), 161–187.Google Scholar
  29. Ekins, P. and Speck, S.: 1999, 'Competitiveness and exemptions from environmental taxes in Europe', Envir. Res. Econ. 13, 369–396.Google Scholar
  30. EPA: 2002, An Introductory Guide to Applied Economic Models for Environmental Policy Analysis, Working Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs.Google Scholar
  31. Fitz Gerald, J. and McCoy, D.: 1992, 'The macroeconomic implications for Ireland', in J. Fitz Gerald and D. McCoy (eds.), The Economic Effects of Carbon Taxes, Policy Research Series, Paper no. 14, Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute, chapter 5.Google Scholar
  32. Frandsen, S.E., Hansen, J.V. and Trier, P.: 1995, GESMEC – En generel ligevægtsmodel for Danmark. Dokumentation og anvendelser (GESMEC – An Applied General Equilibrium Model for Denmark – Documentation and Applications), Copenhagen, The Secretariat of the Economic Council.Google Scholar
  33. Frandsen, S.E., Hansen, J.V. and Trier, P.: 1996, 'En generel ligevægtsmodel for Danmark og beregnede virkninger af CO2-afgifter' (A general equilibrium model for Denmark and calculated impacts of CO2 taxes), Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift 134, 272–289.Google Scholar
  34. Glomsrød, S., Hansen, A.C. and Rosendahl, K.E.: 1996, Integrering av miljøkostnader i makroøkonomiske modeller (Integrating Environmental Costs into Macroeconomic Models), Rapporter 96/23, Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  35. Goulder, L.H.: 1995a, 'Effects of carbon taxes in an economy with prior tax distortions: An intertemporal general equilibrium analysis', J. Envir. Econ. & Manag. 29, 271–297.Google Scholar
  36. Goulder, L.H.: 1995b, 'Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide', Int. Tax Public Finance 2, 157–183.Google Scholar
  37. Goulder, L.H. and Schneider, S.H.: 1999, 'Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies', Res. Energy Econ. 21, 211–253.Google Scholar
  38. Goulder, L.H., Parry, I.W.H., Williams, R.C. and Burtraw, D.: 1999, 'The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting', J. Publ. Econ. 72, 329–360.Google Scholar
  39. Gørtz, M., Hansen, J.V. and Larsen, M.: 1999, 'CO2-skatter, dobbelt-dividende og konkurrence i energisektoren: Anvendelser af den danske AGL-model ECOSMEC' (CO2 taxes, double dividend and competition in the energy sector: Applications of the Danish CGE model ECOSMEC), Arbejdpapir 1999(1), Danish Economic Council.Google Scholar
  40. Harrison, G.W. and Kriström, B.: 1996, 'Effekter av olika skattväxlingsalternativ enligt en allmän jämviktsmodell' (Effects of different green tax alternatives using a general equilibrium model), in Expertrapporter från skatteväxlingskommittén, SOU1996(117), Stockholm, Fritzes förlag.Google Scholar
  41. Harrison, G.W. and Kriström, B.: 1999, 'General equilibrium effects of increasing carbon taxes in Sweden', in R. Brännlund and I-M. Gren (eds.), Green Taxes – Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence from Scandinavia, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Hill, M.: 1999, Green Tax Reforms in Sweden: The Second Dividend and the Cost of Tax Exemptions, Beijer Discussion Paper Series No. 119, Stockholm, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. Honkatukia, J.: 1997, Are There Double Dividends in Finland?, Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration.Google Scholar
  44. Håkonsen, L. and Mathiesen, L.: 1997, 'CO2-stabilization may be a “no-regrets” Policy', Envir. Res. Econ. 9(2), 171–198.Google Scholar
  45. IPCC: 1996, Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. IPCC: 2001, Climate Change 2001 – Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Jensen, J.: 1998, Carbon Abatement Policies with Assistance to Energy Intensive Industry, Working paper No 2/98, Copenhagen, The MobiDK Project, The Ministry of Business and Industry.Google Scholar
  48. Jensen, J. and Rasmussen, T.N.: 1998, Allocation of CO 2 Emission Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments. Copenhagen, TheMobiDK Project, The Ministry of Business and Industry.Google Scholar
  49. Jerkkola, J., Kinnunen, J. and Pohjola, J.: 1993, A CGE Model for Finnish Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis: Effects of Stabilizing CO 2 Emissions, Discussion papers No.5, Helsinki, Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  50. Johnsen, T.A., Larsen, B.M. and Mysen, H.T.: 1996, 'Economic impacts of a CO2 tax', in K.H. Alfsen, T. Bye and E. Holmøy (eds.), MSG-EE: An Applied General Equilibrium Model for Energy and Environmental Analyses, Social and Economic Studies 96, Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  51. Konjunkturinstitutet: 1999, Miljö och ekonomi – scenarier fram till år 2015. Bilaga 2 till Långtidsutredningen 1999 (Environment and Economy – Scenarios Towards 2015. Annex 2 to the Long Term Report 1999),Sweden, Ministry of Finance.Google Scholar
  52. Kverndokk, S. and Rosendahl, K.E.: 2000, CO 2 Mitigation Costs and Ancillary Benefits in the Nordic Countries, the UK and Ireland: A Survey, Memorandum No 34/2000, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  53. Nilsson, C.: 1999, Unilateral versus Multilateral Carbon Dioxide Tax Implementations – A Numerical Analysis with the European Model – GEM-E3, Preliminary version, Stockholm, National Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  54. Nilsson, C. and Huhtala, A.: 2000, Is CO 2 Trading always Beneficial? A CGE-model Analysis on Secondary Environmental Benefits, Draft version, Stockholm, National Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  55. O'Donoghue, C.: 1997, Carbon Dioxide, Energy Taxes and Household Income, Working paper 90, Dublin, The Economic and Social Research Institute.Google Scholar
  56. OECD: 1997, Environmental Taxes and Green Tax Reform, Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  57. OECD: 2000, Greening Tax Mixes in OECD Countries: A Preliminary Assessment,Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  58. Parry, I.W.H., Williams III, R.C. and Goulder, L.H.: 1999, 'When can carbon abatement policies increase welfare? The fundamental role of distorted factor markets', J. Envir. Econ. & Manag. 37, 52–84.Google Scholar
  59. Pearce, D.W.: 1991, 'The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming', Econ. J. 101, 938–948.Google Scholar
  60. Pohjola, J.: 1999, 'Economywide effects of reducing CO2 emissions: A comparison between net and gross emissions', J. Forest Econ. 5(1), 139–168.Google Scholar
  61. Profu: 1997, 'Styrmedlens inverkan på koldioxidutsläppen. Beräkningar med MARKAL-MACRO modellen' (Governmental impact on CO2 emissions. Analyses based on theMARKAL-MACRO model), NUTEK R 1997(39), Stockholm.Google Scholar
  62. Scott, S.: 1992, 'Theoretical considerations and estimates of the effects on households', in J. Fitz Gerald and D. McCoy (eds.), The Economic Effects of Carbon Taxes, Policy Research Series, Paper no. 14, Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute, chapter 2.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, S.: 1998, Distibutional Incidence of Environmental Taxes on Energy and Carbon: A Review of Policy Issues, Paper presented at Colloque du Ministere de l'Environnnement et de l'Amenagement du Territoire, Toulouse, 13 May.Google Scholar
  64. Symons, E., Proops, J. and Gay, P.: 1994, 'Carbon taxes, consumer demand and carbon dioxide emissions: A simulation analysis for the UK', Fiscal Studies 15(2), 19–43.Google Scholar
  65. UN: 1999, 8th Protocol to the UN/ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Signed 1 December 1999. United Nations, Economic and Social Council.Google Scholar
  66. UNFCCC: 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations.Google Scholar
  67. Weyant, J.P. (ed.): 1999, 'The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation', special edition of The Energy Journal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brita Bye
    • 1
  • Snorre Kverndokk
    • 2
  • Knut Einar Rosendahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Statistics NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations