Cited by 530Climate Change Policy and EconomicsEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth

Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses

Open access
Green, Jessica F·2021·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

Carbon pricing has been hailed as an essential component of any sensible climate policy. Internalize the externalities, the logic goes, and polluters will change their behavior. The theory is elegant, but has carbon pricing worked in practice? Despite a voluminous literature on the topic, there are surprisingly few works that conduct an ex-post analysis, examining how carbon pricing has actually performed. This paper provides a meta-review of ex-post quantitative evaluations of carbon pricing policies around the world since 1990. Four findings stand out. First, though carbon pricing has dominated many political discussions of climate change, only 37 studies assess the actual effects of the policy on emissions reductions, and the vast majority of these are focused on Europe. Second, the majority of studies suggest that the aggregate reductions from carbon pricing on emissions are limited—generally between 0% and 2% per year. However, there is considerable variation across sectors. Third, in general, carbon taxes perform better than emissions trading schemes (ETSs). Finally, studies of the EU-ETS, the oldest ETS, indicate limited average annual reductions—ranging from 0% to 1.5% per annum. For comparison, the IPCC states that emissions must fall by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 in order to limit warming to 1.5 °C—the goal set by the Paris Agreement (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). Overall, the evidence indicates that carbon pricing has a limited impact on emissions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most studies have confirmed the effectiveness of carbon pricing in reducing emissions.

    “Most studies have confirmed the effectiveness of carbon pricing in reducing emissions.”

    From The Impact of Carbon Pricing on Corporate Sustainability: Evidence From the European Union (2026) · cites this paper as Green 2021

    The Abstract says the majority of studies suggest carbon pricing reduces emissions, but the estimated aggregate reductions are limited—generally 0%–2% per year. The Results (section 5) stress that there is little hard evidence of its performance. Thus the source supports a qualified finding of modest reductions, not the stronger claim that most studies have confirmed its effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies on carbon pricing at the national level reveal a small impact on national emissions.

    “These studies reveal a small impact of this type of policy on national emissions.”

    From The Impact of Carbon Pricing on Corporate Sustainability: Evidence From the European Union (2026) · cites this paper as Green 2021

    The Results report that carbon pricing generally produces small emissions reductions, between 0% and 2% per year. But the Methods say most studies estimate reductions in sectors covered by the policy, while only some extrapolate to broader jurisdictional effects. The review therefore does not establish that most studies found a small impact specifically on national emissions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Green, J. F.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Green, Jessica F
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2021-03-24
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
043004
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118647971
Cited by
530
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
66.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
Keywords
carbon pricing, carbon tax, emissions trading scheme, EU Emissions Trading System, emission reduction, climate policy effectiveness, ex-post evaluation, sectoral emissions, internalization of externalities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review