Public acceptability is one of the main barriers to the implementation of carbon taxes. Qualitative evidence based on a sample of individuals interviewed in Geneva, Switzerland, shows that the general public would not tackle climate change as economists suggest. The gap concerns not only the choice of climate policy's instruments (i.e. pull versus push measures), but also its specific design in the case of carbon taxes. In this respect, the gap is driven by a diffused perception of environmental ineffectiveness of carbon taxes, which goes hand in hand with distrust in the government and a strong demand for earmarking carbon tax revenues for environmental purposes. Our empirical findings are consistent with the recent literature on the public's preferences on environmental policy design and provide new evidence for the need to reconsider the conventional approach to economic instruments and environmental tax reforms. Reducing resistance to the implementation of Pigouvian taxes cannot abstract from providing effective responses to the concerns emphasized by the general public. Policy relevancePolicy design is key to improve acceptability of climate policy in general and of economic instruments in particular. Given the current understanding and perception of carbon taxes by the general public, there is a substantial trade-off between efficiency-and acceptability-enhancing use of revenues from carbon taxes. Earmarking revenues for environmental purposes clearly reduces perceived complexity and increases acceptability. The paper addresses this trade-off and, drawing on the Swiss experience, discusses how making financial and environmental benefits salient may improve the acceptability of carbon taxes. It also considers the implementation of climate policies directed towards voluntary efforts, which enjoy larger support by the general public.

Public acceptability is one of the main barriers to the implementation of carbon taxes. Qualitative evidence based on a sample of individuals interviewed in Geneva, Switzerland, shows that the general public would not tackle climate change as economists suggest. The gap concerns not only the choice of climate policy's instruments (i.e. pull versus push measures), but also its specific design in the case of carbon taxes. In this respect, the gap is driven by a diffused perception of environmental ineffectiveness of carbon taxes, which goes hand in hand with distrust in the government and a strong demand for earmarking carbon tax revenues for environmental purposes. Our empirical findings are consistent with the recent literature on the public's preferences on environmental policy design and provide new evidence for the need to reconsider the conventional approach to economic instruments and environmental tax reforms. Reducing resistance to the implementation of Pigouvian taxes cannot abstract from providing effective responses to the concerns emphasized by the general public. Policy relevancePolicy design is key to improve acceptability of climate policy in general and of economic instruments in particular. Given the current understanding and perception of carbon taxes by the general public, there is a substantial trade-off between efficiency-and acceptability-enhancing use of revenues from carbon taxes. Earmarking revenues for environmental purposes clearly reduces perceived complexity and increases acceptability. The paper addresses this trade-off and, drawing on the Swiss experience, discusses how making financial and environmental benefits salient may improve the acceptability of carbon taxes. It also considers the implementation of climate policies directed towards voluntary efforts, which enjoy larger support by the general public.