Research ArticleSCIENCE POLICY

Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible?

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  18 Sep 2019:
Vol. 5, no. 9, eaax3323
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3323
  • Fig. 1 Average marginal component effects.

    The first two columns refer to the conjoint experiments with and without revenue information. The final column displays how revenue usage information conditions the effect of the other attributes. This is estimated as the difference between the average marginal component effect (AMCE) for the estimate when revenue usage information is provided and when revenue usage information is not provided. The darker points are the results for the Germany sample, and the lighter points are those for the U.S. sample. The lines display 95% confidence intervals constructed using individual clustered standard errors.

  • Fig. 2 The proportion of support for a carbon tax, at different costs, relative to the sum of those who oppose or support a carbon tax.

    Points indicate the proportion, with vertical lines indicating the 95% confidence intervals. The dashed line indicates the point where an equal number of individuals support and oppose the carbon tax.

  • Fig. 3 The proportion of support for a carbon tax, at different costs, by different forms of revenue recycling relative to the sum of those who oppose or support a carbon tax.

    Points indicate the proportion, with vertical lines indicating the 95% confidence intervals. The gray points and lines indicate the relevant proportions from Fig. 3 where individuals receive no revenue recycling information. The dashed line indicates the point where an equal number of individuals support and oppose the carbon tax.

  • Fig. 4 The proportion of support for a carbon tax, at different costs, by different levels of international involvement in the carbon tax.

    Points indicate the proportion, with vertical lines indicating the 95% confidence intervals. The dashed line indicates the point where an equal number of individuals support and oppose the carbon tax.

  • Table 1 Attributes of carbon tax policy.

    AttributeValues
    1. Cost of carbon tax1. $10 per metric ton ($144 per
    year for average consumer)
    2. $20 per metric ton ($288 per
    year for average consumer)
    3. $30 per metric ton ($432 per
    year for average consumer)
    4. $40 per metric ton ($576 per
    year for average consumer)
    5. $50 per metric ton ($720 per
    year for average consumer)
    6. $60 per metric ton ($864 per
    year for average consumer)
    7. $70 per metric ton ($1008 per
    year for average consumer)
    2. Energy-intensive products
    imported from other countries
    1. Fully exempted (pay no carbon
    tax)
    2. Taxed at half rate (pay only half
    of the carbon tax)
    3. Taxed equally (pay full carbon
    tax)
    3. Domestic companies exporting
    energy-intensive products to other
    countries
    1. Fully exempted (pay no carbon
    tax)
    2. Taxed at half rate (pay only half
    of the carbon tax)
    3. Taxed equally (pay full carbon
    tax)
    4. Similar carbon tax introduced by1. No other countries
    2. European countries (European Union)
    3. China
    4. United States
    5. India
    6. Canada
    7. Japan
    8. All industrialized countries
    9. All developing countries
    [Randomly assigned to be seen
    by half of the respondents]

    5. Additional public revenue, i.e.,
    carbon dividends, used for
    1. Tax rebate paid to everyone
    2. Reduce federal government
    deficit
    3. Fund renewable energy sources
    (e.g., solar, wind, and
    geothermal power)
    4. Fund infrastructure (e.g.,
    railways, roads, and public
    transportation)
    5. Fund programs for low-income
    families
    6. Reduce income tax
    7. Reduce corporate tax
    8. Fund retraining programs for
    workers in fossil fuel sector

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/5/9/eaax3323/DC1

    Section S1. Geographic distribution of respondents

    Section S2. Wording of experimental treatments

    Fig. S1. Geographic distribution of respondents compared to population distribution.

    Fig. S2. Market size of respondents’ location.

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Section S1. Geographic distribution of respondents
    • Section S2. Wording of experimental treatments
    • Fig. S1. Geographic distribution of respondents compared to population distribution.
    • Fig. S2. Market size of respondents’ location.

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Stay Connected to Science Advances

Navigate This Article