The global discourse surrounding carbon dioxide (CO₂) pricing has increasingly captured the attention of policymakers, researchers, and environmental advocates alike. Despite the prominence of this topic in public debate, there remains a significant gap in comprehensive expert consensus on the optimal design and implementation of climate policies tailored to diverse economic and geopolitical contexts. Addressing this shortfall, an extensive international survey spearheaded by Associate Professor Frikk Nesje from the University of Copenhagen, alongside colleagues based in Germany and Switzerland, provides critical insights into how climate policies can be efficiently structured worldwide.
The study canvassed more than 400 experts specializing in climate policy, spanning various disciplines—including economics, political science, environmental science, and law—and representing a broad geographical distribution. These experts were carefully selected based on their recognition within the academic community, demonstrated by peer-reviewed publications on relevant topics. Their perspectives were solicited on a wide range of policy design choices, including the preference for CO₂ taxation versus quota-based trading systems, the application of border carbon adjustments to international trade, and strategies for utilizing revenues generated from carbon pricing mechanisms.
One of the most salient findings of this comprehensive survey is the divergence of expert opinion based on both geographic and economic factors. While a global plurality indicated a preference for CO₂ taxes over cap-and-trade systems like the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), this preference is predominantly concentrated in high-income countries such as the United States and Denmark. Experts from these regions tend to favor carbon taxes for their inherent predictability and administrative simplicity. Conversely, respondents from low-income countries, where institutional and administrative capacities may be more constrained, often view quota-based trading systems as more feasible and potentially more effective, also highlighting the advantage of cross-border quota revenue transfers.
A near-universal consensus emerges concerning the adoption of border carbon adjustment (BCA) mechanisms, with approximately 74 percent of experts across all regions endorsing the imposition of CO₂-equivalent taxes on imported goods. This approach is seen as critical in mitigating competitiveness distortions and preventing carbon leakage—a phenomenon where production shifts to countries with laxer emissions constraints—thereby maintaining the environmental integrity of national climate policies. The broad-based support is particularly noteworthy given the complex legal and logistical challenges surrounding the operationalization of BCAs. This mechanism is gaining political traction within the European Union, exemplified by the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which aims to level the playing field for domestic industries subject to carbon pricing.
The debate over the optimal use of revenues generated by carbon pricing policies reveals a more fragmented landscape. The survey data indicate strong expert support for directing funds toward green research and development (R&D), reinforcing the critical role of technological innovation in achieving deep decarbonization. Equally prominent is the endorsement of targeted financial transfers to households adversely affected by climate policy, addressing concerns of equity and social acceptability. Interestingly, fixed cash rebates to all households—a policy frequently debated in the United States—garner minimal support among surveyed experts.
The variation in opinion regarding revenue allocation aligns closely with professional backgrounds. Economists predominantly advocate for interventions that maximize economic efficiency, such as reducing distortionary taxes or targeted household transfers designed to preserve market incentives. By contrast, experts from environmental science, law, and political disciplines tend to emphasize the importance of public investment in infrastructure and innovation, highlighting differing underlying normative frameworks between economic theory and political feasibility. This dichotomy underscores the multifaceted challenges of designing policies that are both effective and politically viable.
Associate Professor Nesje emphasizes the importance of contextual tailoring in carbon pricing policy design, noting that “no one universal solution exists.” The recommendations gathered in this landmark survey reflect the complex interplay of economic development levels, administrative capacities, and institutional contexts across countries. Policymakers are thus encouraged to ground their strategies in evidence-based frameworks that integrate environmental goals with economic efficiency and social fairness to ensure robust policy adoption and sustained impact.
This study represents the most extensive attempt to synthesize expert opinion on carbon pricing policy design to date, offering an invaluable knowledge resource for international climate governance bodies and national decision-makers. The findings highlight that while consensus exists on some foundational elements, such as the preference for border carbon adjustments, significant divergence remains in other aspects, advocating for a nuanced, adaptive approach to climate policy implementation.
The survey’s robust methodology involved inviting academics with publishing records in the scientific literature on climate policy to evaluate and rank policy instruments. This rigorous approach lends credibility to the findings and underscores the importance of multi-disciplinary input in navigating the complex terrain of global climate policymaking.
Looking forward, the insights from this research hold critical implications for the evolution of climate strategies under the Paris Agreement and beyond. As nations calibrate their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and explore market mechanisms for emissions reductions, understanding the diverse preferences and constraints identified in this expert survey will be pivotal for crafting resilient and inclusive carbon pricing architectures.
In summary, the evolving global consensus underscores the centrality of carbon pricing as a climate mitigation tool, while spotlighting the technical, economic, and equity considerations that must be carefully balanced. This expansive panel of international experts illuminates pathways to enhance policy design, ensuring effective emissions reduction while fostering social equity and economic sustainability.
Subject of Research: Carbon Pricing Policy Design and Expert Consensus
Article Title: Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe
News Publication Date: Not specified (article scheduled for publication on 25-Sep-2025)
Web References: Designing carbon pricing policies across the globe
References: Nesje, F., Schmidt, R., & Drupp, M. (2025). Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe. Environmental and Resource Economics. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-025-01036-3
Image Credits: Mark Dixon, Wikimedia Commons
Keywords: Carbon pricing, CO₂ tax, quota trading, border carbon adjustment, carbon leakage, climate policy design, green R&D investment, climate equity, international climate governance
