sustainability Article Carbon Taxation: A Tale of Three Countries Patrick Criqui 1, Mark Jaccard 2 and Thomas Sterner 3,* 1 Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, GAEL, 38000 Grenoble, France; [email protected] 2 School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3, Canada; [email protected] 3 Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 640, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 July 2019; Accepted: 5 November 2019; Published: 8 November 2019 Abstract: Carbon pricing is considered by most economists as a central dimension to any climate policy. It is assumed to bring simple, transparent, and cost-effective means to change investment and consumption behaviors. The most straightforward method is carbon taxation, but its implementation is more complex. This study provides a comparative analysis of carbon taxation in three countries— Sweden, Canada, and France—aimed at drawing lessons for the future of carbon taxation. Comparing the experience of the three countries reveals that carbon taxes, once in place, do have the intended effect. In this sense, they work well. However, the analysis also reveals very different situations in terms of advances, difficulties, and results, which highlights the need to carefully consider the social and political conditions for the acceptance and effective implementation of such economic instruments. Against this background, the comparative analysis yields four main insights that deserve further research from economics and social scientists: the ability to combine pure economic instruments and other regulation or policies and measures; the management of lobbies and vested interests; the identification of a clear strategy for the recycling of the carbon revenues, whether earmarked or not; and finally, the importance of these three dimensions of carbon taxes in the new settings of zero net emission policies. Keywords: GHG abatement; environmental policy; economic instruments; carbon tax; cost-effectiveness; acceptability 1. Introduction Economists argue that carbon pricing, especially in the form of a carbon tax, is the climate policy that offers the lowest cost method to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (cap-and-trade systems for carbon emission permits offer alternative ways of pricing carbon but are not the subject of this paper). Since governments first started contemplating climate policy three decades ago, the real-world experience has been complicated. While some jurisdictions have implemented carbon taxes, others have not. Where governments have priced carbon, the price has often been too low to cause major GHG reductions, and has usually been implemented in a portfolio alongside other policies, such as regulations, subsidies, public direct investment, and information programs. Since the Paris Agreement in 2015, governments have continued to grapple with implementing and increasing the stringency of their climate policies. As such, they might benefit from comparative studies that show how carbon taxation efforts can differ between countries that in other respects are quite similar. Such comparative analysis of carbon taxation can contribute to the identification of pros and cons for different practices and inform our understanding of the conditions under which carbon taxes may be successful. This could help policy makers in assessing the relative importance of factors such as social acceptance of a policy tool such as a carbon tax, the degree of public trust in Sustainability 2019, 11, 6280; doi:10.3390/su11226280 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21 government, the fossil fuel endowment of a given jurisdiction, key trade relationships, the combinationSustainability with2019, 11 complementary, 6280 climate policies, and the design details of the carbon pricing2 policy. of 21 Sweden, France, and Canada are the countries that have made the greatest efforts to introduce carbon taxes and provide an interesting contrast in terms of their experiences over the past three government, the fossil fuel endowment of a given jurisdiction, key trade relationships, the combination decades.with complementary All three are climatecomparatively policies, andwealthy the design countries, details with of the strong carbon public pricing awareness policy. of climate change Sweden,and broadly-accepted France, and Canada political are commitments the countries that to GHG have madereduction the greatest targets. e ffYet,orts these to introduce countries havecarbon had quite taxes anddifferent provide experiences an interesting with contrast carbon intaxation. terms of In their this experiencespaper, we compare over the pastthe history, three politics,decades. and Alleffectiveness three are comparatively of carbon taxes wealthy in thes countries,e countries with to strong identify public and awareness discuss some of climate of the reasonschange for and these broadly-accepted different experiences, political in commitments hopes that this to GHG comparative reduction analysis targets. will Yet, theseprovide countries valuable lessonshave on had how quite to di achievefferent experiencesbetter success with in carbon the fu taxation.ture with In carbon this paper, taxation, we compare and indeed the history,all GHG reductionpolitics, policies. and effectiveness of carbon taxes in these countries to identify and discuss some of the reasons for these different experiences, in hopes that this comparative analysis will provide valuable lessons on 2. Economichow to achieve Growth, better Energy success Consumption, in the future with and carbon CO2 taxation, Emissions: and indeedA Tale all ofGHG Three reduction Countries policies. 2.This Economic section Growth, briefly Energypresents Consumption, the background and and CO 2dataEmissions: to observe A Tale the ofdecarbonization Three Countries (Table A1) trends before and after the introduction of carbon taxation. This will help us understand how taxes This section briefly presents the background and data to observe the decarbonization (Table A1) and related policies may work as complements in the decarbonization process. Our set of three trends before and after the introduction of carbon taxation. This will help us understand how taxes and countries—Sweden, France, and Canada—indeed illustrate the diversity in the long-term patterns of related policies may work as complements in the decarbonization process. Our set of three countries— evolution of economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions. Against the background of Sweden, France, and Canada—indeed illustrate the diversity in the long-term patterns of evolution of these trends, an in-depth analysis is made of carbon taxation in the three countries in the following economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions. Against the background of these trends, chapters.an in-depth analysis is made of carbon taxation in the three countries in the following chapters. 2.1.2.1. GDP GDP Growth Growth and and GHG GHG Emissions Emissions WhenWhen one one considers considers the the relative relative dynamics dynamics of CO22 emissions andand GDP GDP growth growth since since 1990, 1990, often often consideredconsidered as asthe the starting starting date date for climateclimate policies, policies, the the situation situation stands stands as below as below (Figure (Figure1): France 1): France has hasexperienced experienced a slow a slow economic economic growth growth (1.5%/ year,(1.5%/year, i.e., +51% i.e., from +51% 1990 from to 2017) 1990 and to moderate 2017) and reductions moderate in energy-related emissions ( 13%); Sweden benefitted from a higher economic growth (2.2%/year, i.e., reductions in energy-related emissions− (−13%); Sweden benefitted from a higher economic growth +78%) and significant emission reductions ( 26%); Canada experienced the highest nomic growth rate (2.2%/year, i.e., +78%) and significant emission− reductions (−26%); Canada experienced the highest nomicof the growth three countriesrate of the (2.3% three/year, countries i.e., +86%), (2.3%/year, but their i.e., emissions +86%), increasedbut their byemissions a significant increased amount, by a although in a lesser proportion than GDP (+36%). significant amount, although in a lesser proportion than GDP (+36%). FigureFigure 1. 1.GDPGDP and and energy-related energy-related CO 2 emissions.emissions. Source:ENERDATA. ENERDATA. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 In the three countries there has, thus, been a clear decoupling of CO2 emissions, but in different proportions and with different outcomes. This is explained by the proper dynamics of energy consumption and of the primary energy mix in each country (Figure 2). Part of the decoupling of CO2 emissions could also be explained by deindustrialization and increased imports of energy-intense goods over the period. However, this phenomenon has relatively little importance for the development and is, thus, not really central to the analysis here. Sustainability2.2. Total Primary2019, 11, Energy 6280 Supply 3 of 21 In France, the post-oil-shock energy policies triggered the launching of an ambitious nuclear powerIn program, the three countriesstarting in there 1974. has, This thus, program been aresu clearlted decoupling in a rapid ofincrease CO2 emissions, of nuclear-based but in different power, proportionswith the entry and into with production different of outcomes. the first nuclea Thisr isplants explained soon after by