The debate on carbon dioxide pricing has increasingly occupied public discussions, yet relatively few experts are given a platform to share their views. This lack of expert representation makes it difficult to establish whether professionals agree on how climate policy should be designed and implemented. Recognising this gap, Associate Professor of Economics Frikk Nesje from the University of Copenhagen, in collaboration with colleagues in Germany and Switzerland, undertook a comprehensive survey to capture expert opinions. The project aimed to clarify preferences regarding critical policy tools, such as whether carbon taxation or quota trading is preferable, how border carbon adjustments should operate in international trade, and how revenues generated through climate policy should be utilised.
The survey, which canvassed the perspectives of more than 400 international climate policy experts, is the largest of its kind to date. Its findings underscore the complexity of the issue and the absence of a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, the results reveal that expert recommendations vary significantly depending on geographical location, a country’s stage of economic development, and professional orientation. These variations highlight the importance of tailoring climate policies to specific national contexts rather than imposing uniform solutions that may not be feasible or effective everywhere.
One of the most striking findings was the clear preference for carbon taxation over quota trading. Twice as many experts supported taxation as opposed to systems like the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Yet this headline figure conceals critical regional disparities. In wealthier countries such as Denmark and the United States, experts strongly favour taxes, emphasising their straightforward design and revenue-generating potential. By contrast, respondents from lower-income countries often lean towards quota trading because such systems are perceived as easier to introduce administratively and more flexible in terms of revenue sharing between nations. This contrast reflects the broader reality that institutional and economic capacity shape what is politically and practically achievable.
Despite differences over taxation and trading, there is remarkable unity on the issue of border carbon adjustment. A striking 74 per cent of experts support introducing some mechanism to equalise the carbon costs of imports and exports. In practice, this would mean taxing imported goods to match the carbon tax levels of the importing country, while compensating carbon-intensive domestic exports. The consensus here is notable given the formidable legal and technical challenges associated with such mechanisms. It reflects growing recognition that without border adjustments, climate policies risk creating distortions in global competitiveness and encouraging carbon leakage, where industries relocate to jurisdictions with weaker climate rules. The prominence of this measure in current debates is also evident in its central role in the European Union’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
When considering how revenues should be spent, the survey revealed less agreement. The most widely supported option was investing in green research and development, with many experts emphasising the need to accelerate technological innovation to meet climate goals. Close behind was the idea of compensating households most negatively affected by rising energy costs and other burdens created by climate policies. By contrast, there was relatively little support for proposals to distribute revenues evenly as lump-sum payments to households—a measure frequently promoted in North American debates.
The divisions over revenue use reflect underlying disciplinary perspectives. Economists in the survey were more inclined to recommend options that improve efficiency, such as lowering distortionary taxes or providing targeted transfers. Experts from other professional backgrounds, however, tended to favour public investment in green technologies and infrastructure, arguing that these approaches are more politically palatable and visible to citizens. Nesje notes that this divergence mirrors a classic tension between economic theory and political realism. Both perspectives matter, he argues, because climate policy must be both economically sound and politically feasible to achieve broad acceptance and long-term effectiveness.
The survey thus provides decision-makers with an invaluable knowledge base, bringing together expert views from around the world to illuminate both points of agreement and areas of divergence. By acknowledging these nuances, governments can design climate policies that are not only environmentally effective but also economically and socially just. The key message is that while global challenges demand international cooperation, the pathways to climate solutions must reflect the distinct circumstances of each country.
More information: Frikk Nesje et al, Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe, Environmental and Resource Economics. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-025-01036-3
Journal information: Environmental and Resource Economics Provided by University of Copenhagen