Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 10th Sept 2026, 07:05:04pm CEST (Norway)
External resources will be made available 30 min before a session starts. You may have to reload the page to access the resources.
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | |
|
Environmental taxes: impacts and political economy Location: Auditorium C: Thore Johnsen Session Chair: Jetske Bouma, PBL, the Environmental Assessment Agency the Netherlands | |
    | |
Public acceptability and the environmental impact of a meat tax in the Netherlands 1: PBL, the Environmental Assessment Agency the Netherlands, Netherlands, The; 2: Department of Spatial Economic, VU University; 3: Department of Spatial Economic, VU University; 4: Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University The environmental impact of meat consumption is substantial and significant. The literature suggests that taxing meat could reduce environmental impacts but that effectiveness depends on the price elasticity of demand. This study uses different estimates of the price elasticity of the demand for meat in the Netherlands to assess the environmental impact of a meat tax, and discusses its distributional effects. It is important to pay attention to distributional effects as public acceptance for a meat tax is limited. This paper shows that for a lower bound Pigovian tax (10-35% price increase), the trade-offs are limited, but that there are choices with regard to tax instrument design. For one, the environmental impact of a VAT increase, which is relatively simple to implement, is similar to the effect of a lower bound Pigovian tax. However, a VAT affects the consumption of all meat products whereas a Pigovian tax mostly affects the consumption of beef: the reduction in meat consumption is lower under a Pigovian tax. In both cases, income effects seem limited: a Pigovian tax reduces the CO2 emissions of Dutch protein consumption with 8-24% at a cost of max 0.6% of net household income. | |