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: 7th June 2025, 10:22:59pm AoE (anywhere on Earth)
External resources will be made available 30 min before a session starts. You may have to reload the page to access the resources.
Environmental taxes: impacts and political economy
Time:
Wednesday, 18/June/2025:
11:00am - 12:45pm
Session Chair: Jetske Bouma, PBL, the Environmental Assessment Agency the Netherlands
Location:Auditorium C: Thore Johnsen
Presentations
Energy cost concerns as driver of carbon pricing opposition
Antonia Schwarz1, Kathrin Kaestner2
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; 2RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research
Discussant: Laura Schwab (University of Basel)
As a result of the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2023 was characterized by unprecedented price increases for heating fuels, namely gas and oil. On the political spectrum, the unforeseen events of the invasion and its impact on heating costs led to various crisis interventions by governments worldwide, many of which were concerning from a climate policy perspective. Using novel survey data from Germany this study demonstrates that the experience of economic hardship due to energy cost increases is associated with a significant decline in support for carbon pricing, which is widely regarded as the flagship policy for the fight against climate change by economists. The findings also underscore the potential of heightened public awareness about relief measures to mitigate the detrimental effects of distress. Consequently, despite their short-term adverse impact on carbon emissions, relief programs aimed at easing the short-term financial burden of unexpected price spikes may be a second-best option for ensuring climate policy stability. In anticipation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme II (ETS2) implementation, these findings underscore the necessity of a re-evaluation of the Social Climate Fund. Specifically, there is a compelling rational for the automatic initiation of direct relief measures in response to unparalleled short-term price fluctuations. This would serve to maintain public support, not only for ETS2, but also for the broader European climate policy agenda.
Transport Pricing to Promote E-biking and Reduce Externalities: Insights from a GPS-Tracked Experiment
Laura Schwab1, Beat Hintermann1, Jakob Roth1, Kay Axhausen2, Adrian Meister2, Lucas Meyer de Freitas2, Thomas Götschi3
1University of Basel, Switzerland; 2ETH Zurich; 3University of Oregon
Discussant: Jan-Niklas Meier (Leipzig University)
This study presents results from a pre-registered randomized controlled trial involving 1,085 participants in Switzerland that have access to an E-bike, a car and public transport, and whose transport choices are monitored via a GPS-based app. The treatment consists in a monetary incentive that captures the main external costs and benefits associated with transport in the form of a Pigovian tax. The tax reduces transport-related external costs by 6.5%, predominantly by encouraging a shift away from driving towards E-biking and walking. Participants reduce their car travel distance by 8.2% on average, while increasing their cycling and walking distance by 12.6% and 6.1%, respectively. The effect is primarily driven by individuals who own a “fast” E-bike with support up to 45 km/h, rather than users of regular E-bikes. Besides a reduction in overall driving, the pricing also induces a shift of travel towards less congested time windows.
What remains on site? Local business tax revenue from wind power in Germany
Jan-Niklas Meier1,2, Paul Lehmann1,2, Erik Gawel1,2
1Leipzig University, Germany; 2Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ
Discussant: Jetske Bouma (PBL, the Environmental Assessment Agency the Netherlands)
Does wind power deployment augment local business tax revenue, and what share of the
business tax income generated by wind turbines actually accrues to the municipal treasuries
on site? Employing a difference-in-differences approach, we estimate this share of potential
business tax payments that are retained locally. Our dataset encompasses 9,151 rural German
municipalities spanning the years 2003 to 2022. Our fndings reveal that about half of
the potential business tax payments remain in hosting municipalities. In particular, those
hosting municipalities receive fiscal benefits where turbine operators are located on site. We
also nd that a legal change in the formula apportionment has partially altered this to the
advantage of hosting municipalities in general.
Public acceptability and the environmental impact of a meat tax in the Netherlands
Jetske Bouma1, Zhaoxin Liu2, Mark Koetse4, Erik Ansink3
1PBL, the Environmental Assessment Agency the Netherlands, Netherlands, The; 2Department of Spatial Economic, VU University; 3Department of Spatial Economic, VU University; 4Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University
Discussant: Kathrin Kaestner (RWI - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research)
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.
