Experts: Climate policy must be tailored to each individual country
Researchers have asked over 400 international experts which climate policies work best. The study shows that climate policy should be adapted to the specific conditions and needs of each country.
University of Copenhagen
image:
Photos taken at the 2017 DC Climate March on April 29, 2017. Marcher wearing t-shirt about carbon tax, "Keep calm and price carbon."
view moreCredit: Mark Dixon, Wikimedia Commons
The discussion about CO₂ pricing is a hot topic in the public debate. But relatively few experts have their say, so it can be difficult to know whether there is consensus among professionals about the different types of climate policies.
Associate Professor of Economics Frikk Nesje from the University of Copenhagen, together with two colleagues from Germany and Switzerland, has therefore asked a large number of international experts in climate policy how a good policy should be structured. This includes, for example, the choice between CO₂ taxation and CO₂ quota trading, the question of border carbon adjustment on internationally traded goods, and how to use the revenue generated by climate policy.
Their study shows that there is no one universal solution: the recommendations from the more than 400 experts who participated in the study vary considerably depending on geographical location, including their country's level of economic development, and professional background.
"Our goal has been to provide decision-makers with a solid knowledge base so that they can tailor climate policies that combine environmental effectiveness with economic efficiency and fairness, regardless of where in the world they are to be implemented. This is to ensure that climate policy both works and is adopted," explains Frikk Nesje.
The study presents the largest international survey of recommendations on the topic to date.
Overwhelming majority in favour of border carbon adjustment
The study shows that twice as many experts prefer a CO₂ tax to trading in CO₂ quotas, as in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). However, the figures mask significant geographical and economic differences:
"In high-income countries such as the United States and Denmark, there is a clear preference for taxes. In low-income countries, the picture is more mixed – here, quota trading is often recommended, which is probably because experts from low-income countries believe that it will be significantly easier and more effective to introduce quotas than taxes. This may also be due to the possibility of transferring quota-based revenues between countries," says Frikk Nesje.
On the other hand, as many as 74 per cent of experts – regardless of where they come from and what their professional background is – believe that it is necessary to introduce some form of border carbon adjustment by imposing a tax on imported goods that corresponds to the importing country's CO₂ tax, as well as compensation for CO₂-intensive exports.
"Border carbon adjustment has clearly become a key element in the discussion on how to avoid distortion of competitiveness and CO₂ leakage in connection with climate policy. And it is remarkable how broad the support is, considering the legal and technical challenges associated with introducing border carbon adjustment," says Frikk Nesje.
Border carbon adjustment will also play a central role in the EU's climate policy through the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
What should the money be used for?
When it comes to the use of revenue from CO₂ taxes or CO₂ quotas, experts are more divided. The most popular option is investment in green research and development, closely followed by targeted transfers to the households hardest hit by the climate policy.
Experts are far less supportive of paying the revenue as fixed amounts directly to households, as is often proposed in research and political debates in the United States.
"Here we can see that the experts' professional backgrounds play a particularly important role: economists typically recommend measures aimed at economic efficiency, such as reducing distortionary taxes or transfers of money to households. Conversely, experts from other professional groups are much more likely to suggest that the money should be spent on public investments in, for example, green technology," says Frikk Nesje, concluding:
"This difference also reflects a classic divide between economic theory and political realism. Both perspectives are important if you want to design policies that both work and get passed."
About the study
The study is based on a comprehensive survey of more than 400 academic experts, selected on the basis of their publications on the subject in recognised scientific journals.
The experts represent a broad geographical and academic spectrum, from economists and political scientists to environmental researchers and lawyers.
In connection with the study, they were asked to assess and prioritise various policy choices, such as the choice of CO₂ taxes or CO₂ quotas.
The article "Designing carbon pricing policies across the globe" by Frikk Nesje, Robert Schmidt and Moritz Drupp has been published in the journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Journal
Environmental and Resource Economics
Method of Research
Survey
Article Title
Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe
UK MPs and public overestimate time left for climate action, study finds
University of East Anglia
A new study has found that UK Members of Parliament (MPs) and the public overestimated the time left to meet a critical deadline for limiting global warming.
Researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) surveyed a representative sample of the previous House of Commons, and the public in Britain, Canada, Chile and Germany, on their knowledge of a well-publicised statement from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It related to when global greenhouse emissions need to peak to have a realistic chance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels - the IPCC’s 6th assessment report said this needed to happen by 2025. Participants in the study were asked to choose from options ranging, in five yearly intervals, from 2025 to 2050.
The statement was a key communication of the report when published in 2022, and so the researchers say MPs – and members of the public who pay attention to current affairs – should have been exposed to the finding even if they had not read the report.
However the study, published today in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, found less than 15% of the 100 MPs surveyed knew the correct answer, while over 30% said 2040 or later. Labour MPs were more likely than Conservative MPs to answer correctly, when asked anonymously in autumn 2023.
A similar result was found in surveys of more than 7200 members of the public across Britain, Canada, Chile and Germany, although being younger, worried about climate change, and having lower levels of conspiracy belief mentality was associated with increased accuracy.
Co-author Dr John Kenny, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and School of Environmental Sciences at UEA, said: “Our study has important implications for communicating about the climate crisis, not just through IPCC progress reports, but the many other reports policymakers are expected to digest and act upon.
“Institutions such as the IPCC need to consider how they can help policymakers absorb this information, if they are to incentivise appropriate policies - to act on it, individuals need to be aware of it. The partisan divides in Britain also suggest that whether information is perceived or not and, if so, how, may differ according to political mindsets.
“In a world of increasing information saturation and disinformation campaigns, getting factual information to filter through is no easy task, especially on a complex challenge like climate change. As time for meaningful action is running out, it is imperative we further understand how to effectively convey the key scientific messages to policymakers and the public.”
Dr Kenny added, “Understanding whether politicians have knowledge of these facts and how effectively the information is being communicated to them is vital, given that governments regularly follow differing if not contradictory policies to those that would be consistent with the reports’ findings.”
The IPCC assessment reports aim to provide an authoritative, objective source of information for parliamentarians and policymakers on climate change causes and effects, as well as outline routes for mitigation and adaptation. However, little is known about how aware they are of key findings and policy recommendations.
The UK has historically been a leader on climate action, with a landmark Climate Change Act in 2008, the first parliament to declare an environmental and climate emergency in 2019 and co-hosting the UN Climate Change Conference, COP26, in 2021. The researchers say it is therefore a likely country for MPs to be aware of key findings from IPCC reports.
“Since our work was carried out the composition of the House of Commons has changed following the 2024 General Election” said co-author Dr Lucas Geese, also from the Tyndall Centre and School of Environmental Sciences.
“The previous political consensus on reaching net zero by 2050 when it was introduced in the UK parliament in 2019 has also recently broken down, and some of the current divides echo the Labour-Conservative MP differences in knowledge of the IPCC finding investigated in our study.”
Dr Geese added: “We cannot know from our study whether the current parliament may have a better awareness of the urgency of taking climate action than the previous one. Our results do raise questions however as to whether a lack of knowledge about the urgency of the problem may be somewhat responsible for the recent calls to reduce rather than ramp up climate action, or whether scepticism towards the scientific findings or other ideological perspectives are the primary drivers.
“Further research is needed to establish this, not just in the UK but also for example with national MPs across the globe on their consumption of IPCC findings and the perceived influence that these do, or do not, have on them.
“Acceptance of human-caused climate change is now widespread across most societies and there is a widespread recognition that action needs to be taken,” said Dr Geese “But if politicians and the public don’t realise the urgency, that is a concern and could be one potential reason for not meeting climate mitigation commitments at the national level. It also suggests the dissemination of the messages into other parliaments may be a problem.”
The MP survey, involving 51 Conservative MPs, 32 Labour, six SNP and 11 from other parties, was carried out by market research company Savanta, which conducts monthly parliamentary panels, to be representative of the House of Commons. Just over 30 per cent gave 2030 as their answer, followed by about 23 per cent who said 2035.
In all the public surveys the correct answer of 2025 was either the second or third least chosen response. In Chile as well as Britain, those who trust scientists more were more likely to be closer to the correct answer.
‘Publics and UK parliamentarians underestimate the urgency of peaking global greenhouse gas emissions’, John Kenny and Lucas Geese, is published in Communications Earth & Environment on October 2.
Journal
Communications Earth & Environment
Method of Research
Survey
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Publics and UK parliamentarians underestimate the urgency of peaking global greenhouse gas emissions’
Article Publication Date
2-Oct-2025
