Analysis of Carbon Tax on Selected European Countries: Does Carbon Tax Reduce Emissions?

Methane emissions along biomethane and biogas supply chains are underestimated

Effectively addressing today’s energy challenges requires advanced technologies along with policies that influence economic markets while advancing the public good.

Towering 650 feet over the sea surface and spouting an impressive burning flare, it would be easy to mistake the Sleipner West gas platform for an environmental nightmare. Its eight-story upper deck houses 200 workers and supports drilling equipment weighing 40,000 tons. Located off the Norwegian coast, it ranks among Europe’s largest natural gas producers, delivering more than 12 billion cubic feet of the fuel annually to onshore terminals by pipeline. Roughly 9% of the natural gas extracted here is carbon dioxide (CO2), the main culprit behind global warming. But far from a nightmare, Sleipner West is actually a bellwether for environmental innovation. Since 1996, the plant’s operators have stripped CO2 out of the gas on-site and buried it 3,000 feet below the sea floor, where they anticipate it will remain for at least 10,000 years. We believe [CCS] is a viable way to cut global warming pollution. . . . We have the knowledge we need to start moving forward. –David Hawkins, Natural Resources Defense Council Operated by StatoilHydro, Norway’s largest company, Sleipner is among the few commercial-scale facilities in the world today that capture and bury CO2 underground. Many experts believe this practice, dubbed carbon capture and storage (sometimes known as carbon capture and sequestration, but in either case abbreviated CCS), could be crucial for keeping industrial CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Sleipner injects 1 million tons of CO2 annually into the Utsira Formation, a saline aquifer big enough to store 600 years’ worth of emissions from all European power plants, company representatives say. With mounting evidence of climate change—and predictions that fossil fuels could supply 80% of global energy needs indefinitely—the spotlight on CCS is shining as brightly as the Sleipner flare. A panel of experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently concluded that CCS is “the critical enabling technology to reduce CO2 emissions significantly while allowing fossil fuels to meet growing energy needs.” The panel’s views were presented in The Future of Coal, a report issued by MIT on 14 March 2007. Environmental groups are split on the issue. Speaking for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), David Hawkins, director of the council’s Climate Center and a member of the MIT panel’s external advisory committee, says, “We believe [CCS] is a viable way to cut global warming pollution. . . . We have the knowledge we need to start moving forward.” Other environmental groups, including the World Resources Institute, Environmental Defense, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, have also come out in support of CCS. These groups view CCS as one among many alternatives (including renewable energy) for reducing CO2 emissions. Greenpeace is perhaps the most vocal critic of CCS. Truls Gulowsen, Greenpeace’s Nordic climate campaigner, stresses that CCS deflects attention from renewable energy and efficiency improvements, which, he says, offer the best solutions to the problem of global warming. “Companies are doing a lot of talking about CCS, but they’re doing little to actually put it into place,” he says. “So, they’re talking about a possible solution that they don’t really want to implement now, and at the same time, they’re trying to push for more coal, oil, and gas development instead of renewables, which we already know can deliver climate benefits.”

The impacts associated with unconventional natural gas development (UGD) via hydraulic fracturing have generated considerable controversy and introduced terms such as “fracking” into the public lexicon. From a climate change perspective, transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable sources in order to potentially avoid the worst consequences of a warming planet will need to also consider the climate implications of increased UGD and natural gas use that follows. Specifically, how much greenhouse gas is emitted as natural gas is extracted, transported, and consumed relative to other energy sources? Is UGD a “cleaner” energy source? Compared to what? Does it postpone or “bridge” the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy? Public perception of UGD’s climate impacts not only reflect individual attitudes but broader social discourse among stakeholder groups. Understanding these perceptions, their psychological and social factors antecedents, and how to engage audiences on this topic will play a key role in UGD’s long-term trajectory, especially as it relates to climate change. An added challenge is that most public opinion studies specific to UGD’s climate impacts (and indeed UGD in general) are limited to the United States, Canada, and a few countries in Europe and Africa, with other parts of the world entirely absent. Nonetheless, the studies that do exist highlight several common themes. In particular, UGD tends to be viewed as cleaner relative to fossil fuels because of the belief it produces less carbon emissions as a result of natural gas extraction and consumption. However, it tends to be viewed as dirtier relative to renewables amid the belief that it increases carbon emissions. This finding complements research showing that natural gas occupies a middle ground between renewables and other fossil fuels in terms of acceptance. Moreover, the extent UGD serves as a bridge energy source remains contentious, with some arguing that it and the natural gas it produces complement fossil fuels and facilitates a transition to renewables, while others claim that UGD entrenches society’s continued reliance on the former. Overall, despite the contentious nature of these issues, UGD’s climate impacts appear less salient across countries than other health, environmental, and economic impacts, perhaps because they are psychologically distant and difficult to experience directly. Amid efforts to convey the public health risks associated with a changing climate, we believe that emphasizing the public health dimensions of UGD’s climate impacts can potentially make them more psychologically tangible. Positively framed messages emphasize that reducing carbon emissions tied to both unconventional natural gas extraction and natural gas consumption (relative to other fossil fuels) and thus mitigating the resultant climate change that follows benefits public health. Conversely, negatively framed messages emphasize that increasing carbon emissions (relative to renewables) and thus amplifying the resultant climate change adversely affects public health. At present, though, there is little evidence as to how these messages affect the perceived connection between UGD’s climate impacts and public health and, in turn, support for UGD versus other energy types. Nor is it clear how these outcomes may vary across countries based on public sentiment toward UGD and climate change along with a variety of psychological and social factors that influence such sentiment. Data available for some countries offers tantalizing scenarios, but we remain limited due to the lack of social science research in countries outside the United States and a handful of others. We call for cross-national comparative studies that include places where UGD—and social science research on it—is still maturing.

Oil, coal, and gas account for approximately 80% of global primary energy, but only a portion of total airborne CO2eq (approx. 35% at GWP20 to 65% at GWP100), even though they account for 95% of total measured CO2 emissions. The benefits of these energy sources, as well as their related costs, are not all incorporated in current energy policy discussions. Global greenhouse gas policies must include documented changes in measured airborne CO2eq to avoid spending large amounts of public funds on ineffective or sub-optimal policies. The authors examined airborne CO2, which is less than half of emitted CO2, as well as reported CH4 emissions and the global warming potential of CH4 as published by the IPCC for coal and natural gas. The surprising conclusion is that surfaced-mined coal appears 'better for the climate' than the average natural gas, and all coal appears beneficial over LNG. Therefore, current CO2-only reduction policies and CO2 taxes are leading to unintended consequences and the switch from coal to natural gas, especially LNG, will not have the desired impact of reducing predicted future global warming; in fact, quite the contrary. A large portion of anthropogenic global warming is attributed by the IPCC and IEA to CH4, but it must be noted that CH4 emissions from natural sources and from agriculture account for approximately 40% and 25% of annual global CH4 emissions respectively. Energy accounts for about 20% of documented CH4 emissions. CO2 contributes only approximately 35% of annual airborne anthropogenic GHG emissions after accounting for CH4, over a 20-year horizon. At a 100-year horizon, the contribution of CO2 increases to approximately 60%. Energy policies that do not consider all GHG emissions along the entire value chain will lead to undesired economic and environmental distortions. All carbon taxation and CO2 pricing schemes are incorrect and need to be revised. At IPCC's GWP20 an approximately 2%1 higher loss of CH4 across the value chain prior to combustion of natural gas versus coal will lead to 'climate parity' of coal with natural gas. According to public data, natural gas value chains have high CH4 and undocumented CO2 losses. On a global average, using only IEA-documented CH4 data, natural gas emits approximately 15% more CO2eq than surface-mined coal, over a 20-year horizon. This difference will increase as the use of shale gas and LNG expands. Investors should support all energy systems in a manner that avoids an energy crisis, including intermittent renewable energy systems where they make sense. If CO2 emissions need to be reduced, one of the most effective ways would be to install ultra-supercritical power plants with CCUS technology. However, the undisputed benefits of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere because of its promotion of photosynthesis and plant growth effects (fertilization) need to be considered in energy policy decisions as well. The authors suggest that future research and development should concentrate on reducing net emissions from fossil fuel power plants and providing cost-effective and reliable new conventional power generation capacity, utilizing clean coal and clean natural gas technology.

’s (2012) conclusion that observed climate change is comparableto projections, and in some cases exceeds projections, allows further inferences ifwe can quantify changing climate forcings and compare those with projections.The largest climate forcing is caused by well-mixed long-lived greenhouse gases.Here we illustrate trends of these gases and their climate forcings, and we discussimplications. We focus on quantities that are accurately measured, and we includecomparison with fixed scenarios, which helps reduce common misimpressionsabout how climate forcings are changing.Annual fossil fuel CO

Analysis of displacing natural gas boiler units in district heating systems by using multi-objective optimization and different taxing approaches

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of different instruments

Global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions has become a worldwide environmental problem, posing a great threat to human survival. As the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, China has pledged to reach peak carbon emissions by no later than 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. It is found that a carbon tax is a powerful incentive to reduce carbon emissions and promote an energy revolution, but it may have negative socio-economic impacts. Therefore, based on China’s 2020 input–output table, this paper systematically investigates the impacts of a carbon tax on China’s economy, carbon emissions, and energy by applying a computable general equilibrium model to determine the ideal equilibrium between socio-economic and environmental objectives. Based on energy use characteristics, we subdivided the energy sector into five major sectors: coal, oil, natural gas, thermal power generation, and clean power. The results show that when the carbon emission reduction target is less than 15%, that is, when the equilibrium carbon tax price is less than 54 yuan/ton, the implementation of a carbon tax policy can significantly reduce carbon emission and fossil fuel energy consumption, while only slightly reducing economic growth rate, and can achieve the double dividend of environment and economy. Moreover, because the reduction of coal consumption has the greatest impact on reducing carbon emissions, the ad valorem tax rate on coal after the carbon tax is imposed is the highest because coal has the highest carbon emission coefficient among fossil fuels. In addition, as an emerging clean energy source, hydrogen energy is the ideal energy storage medium for achieving clean power generation in power systems. If hydrogen energy can be vigorously developed, it is expected to greatly accelerate the deep decarbonization of power, industry, transportation, construction, and other fields.

Whether natural gas consumption bring double dividends of economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions reduction in China?

Global warming's major cause is the emission of greenhouse-effect gases (GHG), especially carbon dioxide (CO2) whose main source is the combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels serve as the primary energy source in many industries, including shipping, which is the focus of this study. One of the measures proposed to tackle GHG emissions is the development of green shipping corridors - carbon-free shipping routes that require the transition to alternative fuels, which are gaining competitiveness. One of the reasons for that is carbon pricing, which taxes CO2 emissions. However, the lack of consensus on the most cost-advantageous alternative fuel in the long run results in the delay of the implementation of green shipping corridors.To make it more accessible for stakeholders to conduct an economic analysis of the various options, a framework to determine and minimize the costs of transitioning from fossil fuels to any alternative fuel is proposed, over the period of one voyage, considering the lost opportunity cost, the deployment cost of bunkering vessels at the necessary call ports, the cost of converting the vessel, the car-bon emissions tax cost, and the fuel cost. This will allow stakeholders to choose the most economical alternative fuel, accelerating the development of green shipping corridor initiatives. To validate the effectiveness of the framework, it was applied in a case study involving a shipowner seeking to transition from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to Ammonia, Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), or Methanol. This study faced limitations due to the unknown costs of installing bunkering vessels for Ammonia and Hydrogen. However, it evaluates the cost-effectiveness of alternative fuels, providing insights into their short-term economic viability. The results showed that Hydrogen is the most cost-advantageous fuel until a deployment cost per bunkering vessel of 1,990,285$ for a sailing speed of 22 knots and 2,190,171$ for a sailing speed of 18 knots is reached, after which LNG becomes the most economical option regardless of variations in the carbon tax. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effects of variations in parameters, such as carbon tax, fuel prices and vessel conversion costs in the total cost of each fuel option. Results highlighted that even though HFO remains the most economical fuel option, even when considering a high increase in carbon tax, the cost gap between HFO and alternative fuels narrows significantly with the increase in carbon tax. Furthermore, the sailing speed impacts the fuels’ competitiveness, as the cost difference between HFO and alternative fuels decreases at higher speeds.

Oil and gas are key energy sources in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. The present study examines the asymmetrical environmental effects of these energy sources and also tests the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) from 1975 to 2019. In the long run, the EKC is corroborated in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But the EKC is not validated in the GCC Panel. Increasing oil consumption raises carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in all investigated GCC countries, and decreasing oil consumption reduces CO2 emissions in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The effect of oil consumption is found asymmetrical in Qatar and symmetrical in the rest of GCC countries. Increasing natural gas consumption (NGC) carries a positive effect in all investigated GCC countries, and decreasing NGC reduces emissions in Oman, Qatar, and the UAE. Moreover, NGC's effects are asymmetrically in all GCC countries except Qatar. In the panel estimates, both increasing and decreasing oil and NGC have positive effects on CO2 emissions. The long-run effect of oil consumption on CO2 emissions is larger than the effect of NGC in most GCC economies and panel results. In the short run, increasing and decreasing oil consumption and NGC have a positive effect on emissions in all investigated economies except Saudi Arabia. In the long run, coefficients of decreasing oil consumption are found significantly greater than coefficients of increasing NGC in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the whole GCC. This finding corroborates that increasing CO2 emissions with increasing NGC is lower than decreasing CO2 emissions with decreasing oil consumption. Hence, we recommend these countries switch from oil consumption to NGC to reduce overall CO2 emissions.

Low-carbon production of iron and steel: Technology options, economic assessment, and policy

This paper adopts the vector auto-regression model (VAR) to study the dynamic effect of renewable energy consumption on carbon dioxide emissions. Our model is based on a given level of primary energy consumption, economic growth and natural gas consumption in the US, from 1990 to 2015. Our results indicate that a long-running equilibrium relationship exists between carbon emissions and four other variables. According to the variance decomposition of carbon dioxide emissions, the use of primary energy has a positive and notable influence on CO2 emissions, compared to other variables. From the Impulse Response Function (IRF) results, we find that the use of renewable energy would remarkably reduce carbon emissions, despite leading to an increase in emissions in the early stages. Natural gas consumption will have a negative impact on CO2 emissions in the beginning, but will have only a modest impact on carbon emission reductions in the long run. Finally, our study indicates that the use of renewable forms of energy is an effective solution to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The findings of our study will help policy makers develop energy-saving and emission-reduction policies.

The increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emission causes climate change, which manifests itself through global warming, so the reduction of CO2 emissions is considered an important challenge for environmental protection. Road traffic is one of the main anthropogenic sources of CO2, as well as other gases that cause the greenhouse effect, so traffic is designated as one of the main causes of global warming. This situation has led to thinking about strategies to reduce CO2 emissions from road traffic. This paper considers the impact of road traffic on CO2 emissions, including various aspects of traffic such as fuel types, vehicle types and efficiency, traffic infrastructure and strategies to reduce its emissions. For this purpose, the results of research published in the last decade were summarized and compared. Based on the presented results, it is noticeable that CO2 emission is a necessary companion of road traffic and that it increases along with the increase in the number of vehicles and the use of fossil fuels, but also that significant efforts are being made to reduce its emission. The work provides the basis for further research and development of strategies that affect the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which will reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming.