Climate Policies, Carbon Pricing, and Pollution Tax: Do Carbon Taxes Really Lead to a Reduction in Emissions?
A carbon tax represents the most adequate policy for regulating carbon emissions while charging consumers (Hagmann and Loewenstein, 2019): it is a practical addition to emissions trading system and may advance enterprise low-carbon technology restructuring and distribution to a certain degree. (Wang et al., 2019) The liability for carbon emissions is likely to be dissimilar under distinct emission accounting standards. (Zhang et al., 2019)
2. Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
Nudges intended for cutting down carbon emissions may have a negative indirect consequence if they stipulate a swift way out and thus subvert backing for policies of a more significant impact. (Hagmann and Loewenstein, 2019) The present international impetus for carbon pricing has recently brought about carbon taxes enabling the employment of counterbalances from emission sources not intended by the carbon tax for adherence to the tax load. (Wang-Helmreich and Kreibich, 2019) Carbon tax, the most coherent procedure to moderate greenhouse gas emissions, intensifies imbalances as impoverished households pay out a greater proportion of their earnings on carbon-intensive products. (Fremstad and Paul, 2019) An undifferentiated carbon tax skyrockets financial accountability on manufacturers and hinders their commitment to produce. (Zhou et al., 2019)
3. Methodology and Empirical Analysis
Building my argument by drawing on data collected from CLOSUP, The Economist, Institute of Public Opinion, IMF, IPCC, NYU Institute for Policy Integrity, Pew Research Center, Statista, World Bank etc., I performed analyses and made estimates regarding support for carbon taxes among U.S. adult respondents (%, 2009-2018), actions undertaken to reduce carbon pollution among U.S. adults (%), U.S. individuals' preferences for how to spend carbon tax revenues (%), U.S. adults who say certain proposals would make the biggest difference/a difference (but not the biggest difference) in reducing the effects of global climate change (%), distribution of emissions of greenhouse gases by industry sector worldwide (%), time period during which U.S. individuals believe the net effects of climate change will first have a negative impact on the global economy (%), tax benefits: impact of carbon-pricing schemes (CO2 emissions reduction, 2030 estimate, %/revenue, 2030 estimate, % of GDP), and U.S. individuals who think the government should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (%). The data for this research were collected via an online survey questionnaire and were inspected through structural equation modeling on a sample of 4,800 respondents.
4. Results and Discussion
Instituting a green energy default nudge lowers backing for a carbon tax. (Hagmann and Loewenstein, 2019) Society may be influenced by a carbon tax favorably via features such as the fiscal income governments collect and reinvest into society to assist with problems encompassing climate change. (McLaughlin et al., 2019) As there are conflicting emission reduction targets worldwide, domestic climate policies may be futile in decreasing consumption-based (C[O.sub.2] emissions, that is ones of final demand, consolidated throughout the entire supply chain, and comprising global fractions. (Nabernegg et al., 2019) (Tables 1-8)
5. Conclusions and Implications
By curtailing the perceived economic cost of the tax and reporting the negligible consequence of the nudge, crowding-out is removed without decreasing backing for the nudge. (Hagmann and Loewenstein, 2019) The favorable environmental effect can be catalyzed by energy firms modifying their sources of energy production to renewables and thus reducing their carbon tax bill. The adverse features related to the carbon tax cover how they eventually shape consumers' utility bills via price surges which are likely to concern the neediest in society. (McLaughlin et al., 2019) The success of policies to alleviate consumption-based emissions is dictated by the inconstant connections of the industry (Androniceanu, 2017; Bolton et al., 2018; Bratu, 2018; Cruciani, 2018; Meila, 2018; Mihaila et al., 2018; Mitea, 2018; Popescu Ljungholm, 2018) dealt with by the approaches in addition to the substitution impacts within final demand. (Nabernegg et al., 2019)
This paper was supported by Grant GE-1577642 from the Center for Economic Performance at CSA, Canberra.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Androniceanu, A. (2017). "The Three-Dimensional Approach of Total Quality Management, An Essential Strategic Option for Business Excellence," Amfiteatru Economic 19(44): 61-78.
Bolton, C, V. Machova, M. Kovacova, and K. Valaskova (2018). "The Power of Human-Machine Collaboration: Artificial Intelligence, Business Automation, and the Smart Economy," Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(4): 51-56.
Bratu, S. (2018). "The Ethics of Algorithmic Sociality, Big Data Analytics, and Data-Driven Research Patterns," Review of Contemporary Philosophy 17: 100-106.
Cruciani, M. (2018). "Explicit Communication: An Interest and Belief-based Model," Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 17: 50-70.
Fremstad, A., and M. Paul (2019). "The Impact of a Carbon Tax on Inequality," Ecological Economics 163: 88-97.
Hagmann, D., E. H. Ho, and G. Loewenstein (2019). "Nudging Out Support for a Carbon Tax," Nature Climate Change 9: 484-489.
McLaughlin, C, A. A. Elamer, T. Glen, A. AlHares, and H. R. Gaber (2019). "Accounting Society's Acceptability of Carbon Taxes: Expectations and Reality," Energy Policy 131: 302-311.
Meila, A. D. (2018). "Sustainable Urban Mobility in the Sharing Economy: Digital Platforms, Collaborative Governance, and Innovative Transportation," Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 10(1): 130-136.
Mihaila, R., E. Gregova, K. Janoskova, J. Kolencik, and A. M. Arsene (2018). "The Instrumental Function of Gendered Citizenship and Symbolic Politics in the Social Construction of Labor Rights for Migrants," Journal of Research in Gender Studies 8(2): 127-136.
Mitea, D. R. E. (2018). "The Expansion of Digitally Mediated Labor: Platform-Based Economy, Technology-Driven Shifts in Employment, and the Novel Modes of Service Work," Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 6(4): 7-13.
Nabernegg, S., B. Bednar-Friedl, P. Munoz, M. Titz, and J. Vogel (2019). "National Policies for Global Emission Reductions: Effectiveness of Carbon Emission Reductions in International Supply Chains," Ecological Economics 158: 146-157.
Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2018). "Sharing Economy, Regulatory Arbitrage, and Urban Governance: How City Space Shapes Economic Growth and Innovation" Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 10(1): 174-180.
Wang-Helmreich, H., and N. Kreibich (2019). "The Potential Impacts of a Domestic Offset Component in a Carbon Tax on Mitigation of National Emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 101: 453-460.
Wang, M., Y. Li, M. Li, W. Shi, and S. Quan (2019). "Will Carbon Tax Affect the Strategy and Performance of Low-Carbon Technology Sharing between Enterprises?," Journal of Cleaner Production 210: 724-737.
Zhang, K., M.-M. Xue, K. Feng, and Q.-M. Liang (2019). "The Economic Effects of Carbon Tax on China's Provinces," Journal of Policy Modeling. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019. 02.014
Zhou, D., Y. An, D. Zha, F. Wu, and Q. Wang (2019). "Would an Increasing Block Carbon Tax Be Better? A Comparative Study within the Stackelberg Game Framework," Journal of Environmental Management 235: 328-341.
Spiru Haret University, Bucharest, Romania
How to cite: Ionescu, Lumini.a (2019). "Climate Policies, Carbon Pricing, and Pollution Tax: Do Carbon Taxes Really Lead to a Reduction in Emissions?," Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 11(1): 92-97. doi:10.22381/GHIR11120194
Received 14 December 2018 * Received in revised form 19 May 2019
Accepted 21 May 2019 * Available online 1 June 2019
Table 1 Support for carbon taxes among U.S. adult respondents (%, 2009-2018) Strongly support Somewhat support 2009 11 25 2010 10 22 2011 10 15 2012 29 19 2013 6 16 2014 11 23 2015 22 24 2016 25 25 2017 20 27 2018 24 28 Sources: Statista; CLOSUP; Institute of Public Opinion; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 2 Actions undertaken to reduce carbon pollution among U.S. adults (%) Purchased higher efficiency appliances 46.2 Added insulation to my home 31.4 Planted tree(s) 22.4 Car pool of use mass transit 21.9 Bought a smaller or more fuel efficient car 20.4 Pay higher energy taxes to fund environmental efforts 19.6 Pay higher taxes for the construction of mass transit infrastructure 14.2 Installed or purchased alternative energy sources such as solar for my home 13.3 Reduced or stopped eating dairy products 9.2 Reduced or stopped eating meat 8.6 Bought an electric car 4.7 Don't know/Not sure 3.1 Sources: Saint Leo University; Statista; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 3 U.S. individuals' preferences for how to spend carbon tax revenues (%) Develop clean energy 77 Improve U.S. infrastructure 69 Assist workers in coal industry 62 Pay down national debt 54 Reduce Federal income taxes 48 Assist vulnerable low-income communities 42 Help communities prepare and adapt 36 Return $ to all households 33 Reduce Federal payroll taxes 28 Reduce corporate taxes 26 Sources: Yale University CCC; George Mason University CCCC; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 4 U.S. individuals who think the government should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (%) Regardless of the actions other countries have taken thus far 68 Only if other major emitters enact policies to reduce their emissions 14 Only if it can enter into a multilateral emissions reduction agreement with some 11 countries Only if every country commits to reducing emissions through a global agreement 4 No opinion 1 No response 1 Under no circumstances 1 Sources: NYU Institute for Policy Integrity; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 5 U.S. adults who say certain proposals would make the biggest difference/ a difference (but not the biggest difference) in reducing the effects of global climate change (%) The biggest difference Restrictions on power plant emissions 31 Tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce 27 carbon emissions Tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars 22 Tax incentives to drive hybrid and electric cars 14 A difference, but not the biggest difference Restrictions on power plant emissions 52 Tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce 50 carbon emissions Tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars 56 Tax incentives to drive hybrid and electric cars 57 Sources: Pew Research Center; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 6 Distribution of emissions of greenhouse gases by industry sector worldwide (%) Electricity and heat production 27 Industry 24 Transportation 16 Forestry and land use change 9 Agriculture 9 Buildings 7 Other energy 8 Sources: IPCC; World Bank; Statista; my 2018 data. Table 7 Time period during which U.S. individuals believe the net effects of climate change will first have a negative impact on the global economy (%) By 2025 18 By 2050 22 By 2075 6 By 2100 5 After 2100 1 Climate change will not have a negative effect on the global economy 1 Climate change is already having a negative effect on the global economy 47 Sources: NYU Institute for Policy Integrity; my survey among 4,800 individuals conducted November 2018. Table 8 Tax benefits: Impact of carbon-pricing schemes (C[O.sub.2] emissions reduction, 2030 estimate, % Carbon tax Emissions-trading system India 43 39 China 42 30 United States 28 19 Turkey 22 13 Japan 20 13 UK 19 12 Revenue, 2030 estimate, % of GDP Carbon tax Emissions-trading system India 3.8 2.3 China 2.8 1.2 United States 1.6 0.5 Turkey 2.1 0.9 Japan 1.5 0.8 UK 1.1 0.4 Sources: IMF; The Economist; my 2018 data.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Geopolitics, History, and International Relations|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||International Responsibility-Sharing for Refugees: Perspectives from the MENA Region.|
|Next Article:||The Embedding of Smart Digital Technologies within Urban Infrastructures: Governance Networks, Real-Time Data Sustainability, and the Cognitive...|