Carbon Tax acceptability: A comparative experimental analysis

Author/s Lucia Rotaris, Alessandro Gardelli
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2018/1 Language English
Pages 16 P. 117-132 File size 232 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2018-001005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are rising worldwide. Despite the efforts made both at the national and at the international level, new policies are needed in order to effectively reduce the GHG emissions. Command-and-control policies have been frequently adopted, but proved not to suffice to reverse the phenomenon. A carbon tax could make the case, but it is seldom implemented due to its assumed political unpopularity. A contingent valuation experiment is performed in USA and in Italy to analyze this issue. The results show that the policy acceptability is very high and that the median WTP ranges between a minimum of $161 and a maximum of $246, and varies according to the tax revenue use, the respondents’ nationality, the respondents’ beliefs and knowledge about climate change, and some sociodemographic characteristics. Policy implications of the results obtained are further described in the paper.

Keywords: Carbon tax, willingness to pay, university students, climate change, contingent valuation.

Jel codes: H230, H310, Q480 H230, H310, Q480.

  1. Akter S., Bennett J. (2011). Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Climatic change, 109(3): 417-436.
  2. Barker T., Köhler J. (1998). Equity and ecotax reform in the EU: achieving a 10 percent reduction in CO2 emissions using excise duties. Fiscal Studies, 19(4): 375-402.
  3. Baumol W.J., Oates W.E. (1988). The Theory of Environmental Policy, 23, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  4. Brannlund R., Nordstrom J. (2004). Carbon tax simulations using a household demand model. European Economic Review, 48(1): 211-233.
  5. Bureau B. (2011). Distributional effects of a carbon tax on car fuels in France. Energy Economics, 33(1): 121-130.
  6. Callan T., Lyons S., Scott S., Tol R.S., Verde S. (2009). The distributional implications of a carbon tax in Ireland. Energy Policy, 37(2): 407-412.
  7. Carl J., Fedor D. (2016). Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world. Energy Policy, 96: 50-77.
  8. Cingano F., Faiella I. (2013). La tassazione “verde” in Italia: l’analisi di una carbon tax sui trasporti. Banca d’Italia, n. 206 -- (
  9. De Paoli L. (2015). The fight against climate change: some proposals for action for Italy in Europe. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 1: 9-27.
  10. Di Cosmo V., Hyland M. (2013). Carbon tax scenarios and their effects on the Irish energy sector. Energy Policy, 59: 404-414.
  11. Faiella I., Cingano F. (2015). La tassazione verde in Italia: l’analisi di una carbon tax sui trasporti. Green taxation in Italy: an assessment of a carbon tax on transport. Economia pubblica, 2: 45-90.
  12. Forzieri G., Cescatti A., Silva F.B., Feyen L. (2017). Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: a data-driven prognostic study. Lancet Planet Health, 1: e200-08.
  13. Gerlagh R., van der Zwaan B. (2006) Options and instruments for a deep cut in CO2 emissions: carbon dioxide capture or renewables, taxes or subsidies? The Energy Journal, 27(3): 25-48.
  14. Gonzalez F. (2012). Distributional effects of carbon taxes: the case of Mexico. Energy Economics, 34(6): 2102-2115.
  15. Hanemann M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8: 19-43.
  16. Hersch J., Viscusi W.K. (2006). The generational divide in support for environmental policies: European evidence. Climatic Change, 77(1-2): 121-136.
  17. Hsu S.L., Walters J., Purgas A. (2008). Pollution tax heuristics: An empirical study of willingness to pay higher gasoline taxes. Energy Policy, 36(9): 3612-3619.
  18. Jiang Z., Shao S. (2014). Distributional effects of a carbon tax on Chinese households: A case of Shanghai. Energy Policy, 73: 269-277.
  19. Kallbekken S., Sælen H. (2011). Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy, 39(5): 2966-2973.
  20. Kallbekken S., Aasen M. (2010). The demand for earmarking: results from a focus group study in Norway. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2183-2190.
  21. Kaplowitz S.A., McCright A.M. (2015). Effects of policy characteristics and justifications on acceptance of a gasoline tax increase. Energy Policy, 87: 370-381.
  22. Kerkhof A.C., Moll H.C., Drissen E., Wilting H.C. (2008). Taxation of multiple greenhouse gases and the effects on income distribution: a case study of the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 67(2): 318-326.
  23. Kotchen M.J., Boyle K.J., Leiserowitz A.A. (2013). Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States. Energy Policy, 55: 617-625.
  24. Kristrom B. (1990). Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method. An Econometric Analysis. Umeå Economic Studies, 219, Department of Economics, University of Umeå.
  25. Liu Y., Cirillo C. (2016). Evaluating policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from private transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44: 219-233.
  26. Maggini N. (2016). Young People’s Voting Behaviour in Europe. A Comparative Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Mathur A., Morris A.C. (2014). Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader US fiscal reform. Energy Policy, 66: 326-334.
  28. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future Press, Washington DC.
  29. Montag J. (2015). The simple economics of motor vehicle pollution: A case for fuel tax. Energy Policy, 85: 138-149.
  30. Mori K. (2012). Modeling the impact of a carbon tax: A trial analysis for Washington State. Energy Policy, 48: 627-639.
  31. Moser S., Dilling L. (Eds.) (2007). Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511535871
  32. Murray B., Rivers N. (2015). British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: A review of the latest “grand experiment” in environmental policy. Energy Policy, 86: 674-683.
  33. Pearce D.W. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Economic Journal, 101(407): 938-948. DOI: 10.2307/2233865.
  34. Rienstra S.A., Rietveld P., Verhoef E.T. (1999). The social support for policy measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research D, 181-200.
  35. Sælen H.G., Kallbekken S. (2010). A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway. CICERO Working paper 2010: 02, Oslo, Norway.
  36. Safirova E., Gillingham K., Parry I., Nelson P., Harrington W., Mason D. (2004). Welfare and distributional effects of road pricing schemes for metropolitan Washington DC. Research in Transport Economics, 9: 179-206.
  37. Schade J., Schlag B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F, (6): 45-61.
  38. Scott S., Eakins J. (2004). Carbon taxes: which households gain or lose? ERTDI Report Series 20. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle.
  39. Stavins R.N. (2000). Market-based environmental policies. Public policies for environmental protection, 31, 32.
  40. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25: 322-348. DOI: 10.1177/0013916593255002.
  41. Sterner T. (2007). Fuel taxes: An important instrument for climate policy. Energy policy, 35(6): 3194-3202.
  42. Sterner T. (2012). Distributional effects of taxing transport fuel. Energy Policy, 41: 75-83.
  43. Stram B.N. (2014). A new strategic plan for a carbon tax. Energy Policy, 73: 519-523.
  44. Thalmann P. (2004). The public acceptance of green taxes: 2million voters express their opinion. Public Choice, 119: 179-217.
  45. Tiezzi S. (2001). The welfare effects of carbon taxation on Italian households. Working Paper 337, Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Università degli Studi di Siena.
  46. Tiezzi S. (2005). The welfare effects and the distributive impact of carbon taxation on Italian households. Energy Policy, 33: 1597-1612.
  47. Viscusi W.K., Zeckhauser R.J. (2006). The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Climatic change, 77(1-2): 151-177.
  48. Wier M., Birr-Pedersen K., Jacobsen H.K., Klok J. (2005). Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience. Ecological Economics, 52: 239-251.
  49. Wissema W., Dellink R. (2007). AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy. Ecological Economics, 61(4): 671-683.

Lucia Rotaris, Alessandro Gardelli, Carbon Tax acceptability: A comparative experimental analysis in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2018, pp 117-132, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2018-001005