Taxation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Reference work entry
Part of the Handbook of Global Environmental Pollution book series (EGEP, volume 1)


In theory, carbon taxes are considered a sound instrument to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Despite its relatively scarce and recent implementation, empirical assessments of carbon taxes effectiveness are increasingly available, although they have not been surveyed yet. We fill the gap by reviewing the main studies, including indirect effects on technological development and on other pollutants (i.e., co-benefits). We also consider the supplier’s response to higher expected future energy prices, surveying the principal theoretical findings and the first empirical contributions on the Green Paradox.


Climate policy Carbon tax, CO2 tax Environmental effectiveness Green Paradox Co-benefits Porter Hypothesis Revenue recycling 



We thank Nicole A. Mathys, Stefan Speck and Philippe Thalmann for very useful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2012) The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev 102(1):131–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S, Lanoie P (2013) The Porter Hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Rev Environ Econ Policy 7:2–22Google Scholar
  3. Andersen MS (2010) Europe’s experience with carbon-energy taxation. S.A.P.I.E.N.S.
  4. Arimura T, Hibiki A, Johnstone N (2007) An empirical study of environmental R&D: what encourages facilities to be environmentally innovative? In: Johnstone N (ed) Corporate behavior and environmental policy. Edward Elgar/OECD.
  5. Austin DH, Dinan T (2005) Clearing the air: the costs and consequences of higher CAFE standards and increased gasoline taxes. J Environ Econ Manag 50:562–582Google Scholar
  6. Baranzini A, Goldemberg J, Speck S (2000) A future for carbon taxes. Ecol Econ 32(3):395–412Google Scholar
  7. Baranzini A, Weber S (2013) Elasticities of gasoline demand in Switzerland. Energy Policy 63:674–680Google Scholar
  8. Barker T, Ekins P, Foxon T (2007a) The macro-economic rebound effect and the UK economy. Energy Policy 35:4935–4946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barker T, Junankar S, Pollitt H, Summerton P (2007b) Carbon leakage from unilateral environmental tax reforms in Europe, 1995–2005. Energy Policy 35:6281–6292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1971) The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. Swed J Econ 73:42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brännlund R et al (2007) Increased energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brons M, Nijkamp P, Pels E, Rietveld P (2008) A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach. Energy Econ 30(5):2105–2122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunnermeier SB, Cohen MA (2003) Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. J Environ Econ Manag 45:278–293Google Scholar
  14. Bruvoll A, Larsen BM (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions in Norway: do carbon taxes work? Energy Policy 32:493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Commins N, Lyons S, Schiffbauer M, Tol RSJ (2011) Climate policy and corporate behaviour. Energy J 32(4):51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costantini V, Mazzanti M (2012) On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res Policy 41:132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darnall NG, Jolley J, Ytterhus B (2007) Understanding the relationship between a facility’s environmental and financial performance. In: Johnstone N (ed) Corporate behavior and environmental policy. Edward Elgar/OECD.
  18. Davis LW, Kilian L (2011) Estimating the effect of a gasoline tax on carbon emissions. J Appl Econom 26(7):1187–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Melo J, Mathys NA (2010) Trade and climate change: the challenges ahead. CEPR Discussion Papers 8032Google Scholar
  20. Di Maria C, Lange I, Van der Werf (2012) Should we be worried about the Green Paradox? Announcement effects of the acid rain program. European Economic Review, Available online 18 April 2013Google Scholar
  21. Di Maria C, Van der Werf E (2010) Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change. Environ Resour Econ 39:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. EEA (2011a) Environmental tax reform in Europe: implications for income distribution. EEA Technical Report 16Google Scholar
  23. EEA (2011b) Environmental tax reform in Europe: opportunities for eco-innovation. EEA Technical Report 17Google Scholar
  24. Ekins P (1996) How large a carbon tax is justified by the secondary benefits of CO2 abatement? Resour Energy Econ 18:161–187Google Scholar
  25. Enevoldsen MK et al (2007) Decoupling of industrial energy consumption and CO2-emissions in energy intensive industries in Scandinavia. Energy Econ 29:665–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. EU Climate Change Expert Group (2008) The 2°C target. Information reference documentGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer C, Salant SW (2012) Alternative climate policies and intertemporal emissions leakage: quantifying the Green Paradox. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper No. 12–16Google Scholar
  28. Gerlagh R (2011) Too much oil. CESifo Economic Studies 57(1):79–102Google Scholar
  29. Ghalwash T (2007) Energy taxes as a signaling device: an empirical analysis of consumer preferences. Energy Policy 35(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Godal O, Holtsmark B (2001) Greenhouse gas taxation and the distribution of costs and benefits: the case of Norway. Energy Policy 29:653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goeschl T, Perino G (2012) Instrument choice and motivation: evidence from a climate change experiment. Environ Resour Econ 52:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Golombek R, Hoel M (2004) Unilateral emission reductions and cross-country technology spillover. B E J Econ Anal Policy 3(2):3Google Scholar
  33. Graham DJ, Glaister S (2002) The demand for automobile fuel. A survey of elasticities. J Transp Econ Policy 36(1):1–25Google Scholar
  34. Groosman B, Muller N, O’Neilly-Toy E (2011) The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 50:586–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Habermacher F, Kirchgässner G (2011) Climate effects of carbon taxes, taking into account possible other future climate measures. CESifo Working Paper Series 3404Google Scholar
  36. Hoel M (2010) Climate change and carbon tax expectations. CESifo Working Paper Series 2966Google Scholar
  37. Holland SP (2011) Spillovers from climate policy to other pollutants. In: NBER (ed) The design and implementation of U.S. climate policy.
  38. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II, III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79:610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1994) Energy-efficiency investments and public policy. Energy J 15:43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnstone N, Labonne J (2006) Environmental policy, management and research and development. In: Elmskov J (ed) OECD economic studies 46:169–203Google Scholar
  43. Krysiak FC (2011) Environmental regulation, technological diversity, and the dynamics of technological change. J Econ Dyn Control 35:528–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lanjouw JO, Mody A (1996) Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Res Policy 25:549–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lanoie P, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Johnstone N, Ambec S (2011) Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the porter hypothesis. J Econ Manag Strat 20(3):803–842Google Scholar
  46. Li S, Linn J, Muehlegger E (2012) Gasoline taxes and consumer behavior. Working Paper Series rwp12-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  47. Lin B, Li X (2011) The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 39:5137–5146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mizobuchi K (2008) An empirical study on the rebound effect considering capital costs. Energy Econ 30:2486–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5(1):014007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114:941–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noailly J (2012) Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: the impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy Econ 34(2):795–806Google Scholar
  52. Nordhaus WD (2010) Carbon taxes to move toward fiscal sustainability. The Economists’ Voice 7(3), Berkeley Electronic PressGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD (2002) Ancillary benefits and costs of GHG mitigation: policy conclusions. Working Party on Global and Structural Policies 13Google Scholar
  54. OECD (2009) Co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies: literature review and new results. OECD Economic Department Working Paper 34Google Scholar
  55. Patuelli R, Nijkamp P, Pels E (2005) Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: a meta-analytical performance assessment. Ecol Econ 55:564–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pizer WA (2002) Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J Public Econ 85:409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Popp D (2006) International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effect of NOx and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan and Germany. J Environ Econ Manag 51:46–71Google Scholar
  60. Porter ME (1991) America’s green strategy. Sci Am 264:168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect, American Economic Association 9:97–118Google Scholar
  62. Scott KR (2012) Rational habits in gasoline demand. Energy Econ 34(5):1713–1723Google Scholar
  63. Sinclair PJN (1992) High does nothing and rising is worse: carbon taxes should keep declining to cut harmful emissions. Manch Sch Econ Soc Stud 60:41–52Google Scholar
  64. Sinn H-W (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Finance 15:360–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Speck S, Andersen MS, Nielsen HO, Ryelund A, Smith C (2006) The use of economic instruments in Nordic and Baltic Environmental Policy 2001–2005. Nordic Council of Ministers ReportGoogle Scholar
  66. Spinesi L (2012) Global warming and endogenous technological change: revisiting the green paradox. Environ Resour Econ 51:545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sterner T (2007) Fuel taxes: an important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 35:3194–3202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thalmann P (2012) Global environmental taxes. In: Milne JE, Andersen MS (eds) Handbook of research on environmental taxation. Edward Elgar, pp 456–476Google Scholar
  69. UNEP (2011) Bridging the emissions gap. UNEP Synthesis Report.
  70. Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41:50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang Z, Baranzini A (2004) What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income. Energy Policy 32:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HEG Genève – School of Management GenevaUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO)Carouge, GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations