The fiscal benefits of stringent climate change mitigation: an overview

Siegmeier, Jan; Mattauch, Linus; Franks, Max; Klenert, David; Schultes, Anselm; Edenhofer, Ottmar

doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1400943

Cited by 33 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also additional to the GFL are revenues generated from the Demand-Side Management Levy (DSML) and the Illuminating Paraffin (IP) Tracer Dye Levy, amounting to ZAR 279 million in fiscal year 2015/2016 (South African Treasury, 2018 [163]) and ZAR 1 million in fiscal year 2012/2013 (South African National Assembly, 2014 [164]), respectively. The RAF Levy (Recoupment) provides social security insurance to victims of road transport, and is the main source of income of the RAF compensation scheme (Road Accident Fund (RAF), 2018 [38]). The SACU pool levy is transferred to the SACU common revenue pool.…”

Section: The Use Of Revenues From Carbon Pricing © Oecd 2019mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Luxembourg applies a social contribution rate to energy products earmarked to an Employment Fund (Fonds pour l'emploi -(Luxembourg Ministry of Finance, 2017[36])). Revenues in New Zealand and in South Africa fund insurance coverage schemes for victims of road injuries ( (New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, 2001[37]); (Road Accident Fund (RAF), 2018[38])). Argentina dedicates revenues to the National Administration for Social Security (ANSES) and to the National Housing Fund (Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda) (Argentine Ministry of Finance, 2017[39]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of revenues from carbon pricing

Marten¹,

Dender²

2019

OECD Taxation Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies drawing on the work of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language (English or French) with a short summary available in the other. OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, OECD,

show abstract

Section: The Use Of Revenues From Carbon Pricing © Oecd 2019mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of revenues from carbon pricing

Marten¹,

Dender²

2019

OECD Taxation Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yahoo and Othman (2017) find that a carbon tax in conjunction with revenue-recycling provides a double dividend and leads to welfare enhancements, while stepping up the production of renewable energy. A review by Siegmeier et al (2018) similarly concludes that climate policy, even under a 1.5°C target, may substantially support fiscal objectives and lower mitigation costs. Suckall, Stringer, and Tompkins (2014) find that climate compatible development is increasingly employed by international donors and policy-makers seeking 'triple-wins' for development, adaptation and mitigation, but that these are likely under-reported.…”

Section: Improved Economic and Organizational Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…concerning cook-stoves (Anenberg et al, 2012), electricity supply , waste and transport (Rashidi, Stadelmann, & Patt, 2017), diet and meat consumption (Haines, 2017;Yip et al, 2013), cycling (Mrkajic, Vukelic, & Mihajlov, 2015) and methane (West et al, 2012). A number of scholars ask for more studies that quantify co-benefits or externalities (Anenberg et al, 2013;Haines, 2017;Longo, Hoyos, & Markandya, 2012;Roberts, 2009;Smith et al, 2016;Yedla & Park, 2009), in particular when based on empirical data (Shaw et al, 2018;Siegmeier et al, 2018;Springmann et al, 2016;Yamazaki, 2017).…”

Section: Research Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over mitigation costs impedes the adoption of the climate policies needed to achieve agreed global warming targets. While costs are important to consider, so are benefits. However, the evidence for climate policy co-benefits, that is, the benefits in addition to avoided climate change costs, is commonly overlooked in policy-making. In many areas, the research is limited and not comprehensively synthesised. This article counters that problem and reviews 239 peer-reviewed articles, selected from 1,749 hits from a literature search covering 'co-benefits' and related terms. Aiming to aid policy-makers and to identify research gaps, we structure, describe, analyse and synthesize the rapidly expanding knowledge on climate policy co-benefits. Improved air quality is the co-benefit category dominating the literature, but studies covering a broad geographic range also focus on diet, physical activity, soil and water quality, biodiversity, economic performance, and energy security. In these areas, co-benefits are shown to be of substantial economic value, regarding air quality often of the same order of magnitude as mitigation costs, in some instances even larger. However, the share of studies quantifying or monetizing cobenefits is limited, and the empirical evidence is small, in particular for areas besides air quality and health. Furthermore, the knowledge is seldom used in policy-making, meaning that decision-making is often biased and overly concerned with costs, leading to suboptimal climate policies and goal failures. Evidently, more research is needed, as well as improved decision-making. Understanding and acting on climate policy co-benefits can promote policies that better mitigate climate change and improve overall welfare. Key policy insights. Climate policy co-benefits in well-researched fields such as air quality and health are large, often equalling or exceeding mitigation costs. . Despite their significance, co-benefits are seldom considered in decision-making, leading to biased policies and goal failures. . In several areas, such as diet and energy security, co-benefits are sparsely researched, but emerging evidence points to high values. . More research is needed, including on how to describe the total value of different co-benefits. . Improved processes, documentation requirements and criteria in decision-making are needed, in order to ensure that political decision-makers consider co-benefits. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…Yet while the fiscal implications of mitigation have been addressed (see Siegmeier et al 2018 for a review), there is little known about the implications of public adaptation on government budgets. We argue that there is an essential difference between mitigation and adaptation, which requires a separate and detailed analysis to better understand the effects of adaptation on government budgets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does climate change adaptation affect public budgets? Development of an assessment framework and a demonstration for Austria

Bachner

Bednar–Friedl

Knittel

2019

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public adaptation to climate change affects government budgets directly on the expenditure side, but also indirectly via changes in the tax base and government consumption patterns. While such indirect effects have been analyzed intensively for mitigation policies, similarly detailed model-based frameworks and studies for adaptation policy are still missing. The objectives of the present paper are (i) to fill this gap by proposing a general modeling framework that allows for a comprehensive analysis of effects of adaptation on federal budgets, both on the expenditure and the revenue side, as well as of macroeconomic effects and (ii) to demonstrate its usefulness by applying this framework to the case of Austria. We find that public adaptation can lead to substantial positive macroeconomic effects on gross domestic product (GDP), welfare, and employment. The results are robust with respect to assumptions about the effectiveness of adaptation. Also, we demonstrate that it is essential for analysis to cover both the expenditure and revenue side, as overall government revenues can increase due to adaptation, offsetting additional direct public expenses for adaptation, thus increasing the budget balance. This is because of less severe climate change impacts and the corresponding lower payments for post-disaster relief and unemployment benefits as well as higher tax revenues. We thus strongly recommend making use of economy-wide modeling frameworks when planning for adaptation, as they shed light on the true costs and benefits of adaptation.

show abstract

The fiscal benefits of stringent climate change mitigation: an overview

Cited by 33 publications

References 122 publications

The use of revenues from carbon pricing

The use of revenues from carbon pricing

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

How does climate change adaptation affect public budgets? Development of an assessment framework and a demonstration for Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About