Addressing the poverty and distributional impacts of carbon pricing reforms is critical for the success of ambitious actions in the fight against climate change. This paper uses a simple framework to systematically review the channels through which carbon pricing can potentially affect poverty and inequality. It finds that the channels differ in important ways along several dimensions. The paper also identifies several key gaps in the current literature and discusses some considerations on how policy designs could take into account the attributes of the channels in mitigating the impacts of carbon pricing reforms on households.

Carbon pricing policies that are aligned with the Paris Agreement objectives will have positive and negative socio-economic impacts on society. Impacts of unabated climate change are expected to disrupt economic development and disproportionally affect the poorest parts of the population, especially in lower-income countries. In response, through the Paris Agreement, the international community pledged to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Carbon pricing has been highlighted as a crucial prerequisite for effective climate change mitigation. Carbon pricing is essentially a payment required to emit one ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. This makes production or consumption of carbon-intensive goods and services more expensive. While carbon pricing policies aim to shift behavior towards low-carbon alternatives, they can also result in unintended distributional effects for households, especially when lower-cost alternatives are not available. The negative distributional impacts can be offset through specific policy design choices, but efforts to do so should not undermine the goal of incentivizing emissions reduction.

Governments around the globe have begun to implement various actions to limit carbon emissions and so, combat climate change. This book brings together some of the leading scholars in environmental and climate economics to examine the distributional consequences of policies that are designed to reduce these carbon emissions. Whether through a carbon tax, cap-and-trade system or other mechanisms, most proposals to reduce carbon emissions include some kind of carbon pricing system Ð shifting the costs of emissions onto polluters and providing an incentive to find the least costly methods of abatement. This standard efficiency justification for pricing carbon also has important distributional consequences Ð a problem that is often ignored by economists while being a major focus of attention in the political arena. Leading scholars in environmental and climate economics take up these issues to examine such questions as: Will the costs fall on current or future generations? Will they fall on the rich, poor, middle class, or on everyone proportionally? Which countries will benefit, and which will suffer? Students and scholars interested in climate change, along with policy makers, will find this lively volume an invaluable addition to the quest for information on this globally important issue.

We analyse the consequences of carbon price heterogeneity on households in The EU from 2010 to 2020. Accounting for both heterogeneity in carbon pricing across emission sources and the indirect effects from inter-industry linkages, we obtain two key findings. First, due to widespread carbon pricing exemptions, household burdens are lower than previously estimated. Second, lower-income groups are affected disproportionately, because they spend a smaller share of their expenditure on products that benefit from exemptions than their higher-income counterparts. Therefore, imposing uniform carbon prices both within and across countries would reduce carbon pricing regressivity on household expenditure in the EU. A global price would be most effective in this regard, as it would raise carbon prices embodied in EU imports. Further, because EU economies are open and apply higher average carbon prices than their trade partners, the domestic revenues exceed the costs embodied in EU household consumptions bundles. This increases the scope for reducing the burden of carbon pricing on lower-income households through revenue redistribution. Our results imply that the ongoing extension of carbon pricing to more sectors through the EU ETS II and the introduction of the EU’s CBAM should make carbon pricing less regressive, all else equal.

The global policy debate on just transitions is concerned with how to achieve a socially just and acceptable transition toward a climate-neutral and climate-resilient global economy. At the core of this debate is the assumption that efforts to combat environmental threats will not succeed unless combined with measures to reduce poverty and inequality. Our research explores the potential of carbon fiscal reforms, combining a carbon tax of levels deemed appropriate to achieve climate targets and the transfer of the revenues raised to vulnerable households. The current energy and cost-of-living crisis shows the importance of protecting the poorest and most vulnerable households from price increases. It also shows the difficulty of achieving short- and long-term policy priorities. Despite the current spikes in energy prices, carbon fiscal reforms can achieve both social and environmental goals through simultaneously decreasing emissions and reducing poverty and inequality. They should act as an effective enabler of just transitions. Carbon fiscal reform can avoid some environmental impacts by incentivising reductions in emissions. Carbon pricing has been increasingly advocated and is now at the centre of policy debates, including the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and the recent German presidency of the world's leading industrial nations (G7). But carbon fiscal reforms can also be used to raise revenue from carbon pricing instruments to offset the negative effects of higher prices on poorer households as well as further reaching distributional targets and poverty alleviation. Climate targets are negotiated every year, including at COP, hence it is critical to re-evaluate and improve estimates of the distributional impacts of climate policies such as carbon pricing. Public acceptability of climate policies is key to their implementation, but it depends to a large extent on the perceived fairness of such policies. Recycling revenues from carbon taxes directly back to vulnerable households is likely to gain the approval of a large number of people, especially in low-income countries where the high proportion of the population involved in the informal economy means that lowering income tax does not benefit the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. But the targeting of these direct transfers needs careful consideration. Here, we assess the impact on poverty and inequality of a global carbon tax and national redistribution of revenues to vulnerable households. We look at different options for such redistribution, including a lump sum payment, the use of current social assistance programmes, and an expansion of social assistance following COVID-19. We find that a carbon tax of US$50/tCO2 without revenue redistribution could increase global extreme poverty, but the redistribution of revenue from such a carbon tax could substantially reduce poverty by between 16% and 27% (110 to 190 million people), and reduce inequality (the average Gini coefficient would decline by between 4% and 8%), depending on the scenario. This shows that the way in which revenue from a carbon tax is redistributed greatly affects its impact, underlining the importance of policy design and targeting mechanisms. The recycling of revenues should also take into account the specific political economy of a country and consider international transfers. These findings provide policy makers with a strong basis for informing discussions, starting off with those at COP27, in which ambitious climate targets and just transition should both remain central goals in the context of the ongoing international energy crisis.

Ending poverty and stabilizing climate change will be two unprecedented global achievements and two major steps toward sustainable development. But the two objectives cannot be considered in isolation: they need to be jointly tackled through an integrated strategy. This report brings together those two objectives and explores how they can more easily be achieved if considered together. It examines the potential impact of climate change and climate policies on poverty reduction. It also provides guidance on how to create a “win-win†? situation so that climate change policies contribute to poverty reduction and poverty-reduction policies contribute to climate change mitigation and resilience building. The key finding of the report is that climate change represents a significant obstacle to the sustained eradication of poverty, but future impacts on poverty are determined by policy choices: rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development can prevent most short-term impacts whereas immediate pro-poor, emissions-reduction policies can drastically limit long-term ones.