Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Attributing agnostically detected large reductions in road CO2 emissions to policy mixes

Nature Energy volume 7, pages 844–853 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Policymakers combine many different policy tools to achieve emission reductions. However, there remains substantial uncertainty around which mixes of policies are effective. This uncertainty stems from the predominant focus of ex post policy evaluation on isolating effects of single, known policies. Here we introduce an approach to identify effective policy interventions in the EU road transport sector by detecting treatment effects as structural breaks in CO2 emissions that can potentially occur in any country at any point in time from any number of a priori unknown policies. This search for ‘causes of effects’ within a statistical framework allows us to draw systematic inference on the effectiveness of policy mixes. We detect ten successful policy interventions that reduced emissions between 8% and 26%. The most successful policy mixes combine carbon or fuel taxes with green vehicle incentives and highlight that emissions reductions on a magnitude that matches the EU zero emission targets are possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Emissions in road transport in Europe.
Fig. 2: Detected breaks in road CO2 emissions and their attribution.
Fig. 3: Actual and counterfactual road CO2 emissions.
Fig. 4: Overview of implemented and detected carbon tax changes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All publicly available data analysed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request and are also available from online repository Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6768563).

Code availability

The code required to replicate our study is available from the corresponding author upon request and is also available from online repository Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6768563).

References

  1. Net Zero by 2050—A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector (IEA, 2021).

  2. Axsen, J., Plötz, P. & Wolinetz, M. Crafting strong, integrated policy mixes for deep CO2 mitigation in road transport. Nat. Clim.Change 10, 809–818 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Planning for Net Zero: Assessing the Draft National Energy and Climate Plans (Ecologic & Climact, 2019).

  4. Trends and Projections in Europe 2021 (European Environment Agency, 2021).

  5. Graf, A., Graichen, J., Matthes, F. C., Gores, S. & Fallasch, F. How to Raise Europe’s Climate Ambitions for 2030 (Agora Energiewende and Öko-Institut e.V., 2019).

  6. Transport and Energy Why Increasing Ambition under the ESR is Unavoidable (2021).

  7. Grant, D., Bergstrand, K. & Running, K. Effectiveness of US state policies in reducing CO2 emissions from power plants. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 977–982 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin, G. & Saikawa, E. Effectiveness of state climate and energy policies in reducing power-sector CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 912–919 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Andersson, J. J. Carbon taxes and CO2 emissions: Sweden as a case study. Am. Econ. J. 11, 1–30 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bayer, P. & Aklin, M. The European Union emissions trading system reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8804–8812 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gelman, A. & Imbens, G. Why Ask Why? Forward Causal Inference and Reverse Causal Questions (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013).

  12. Eskander, S. M. & Fankhauser, S. Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 750–756 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin, B. & Li, X. The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 39, 5137–5146 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Klemetsen, M., Rosendahl, K. E. & Jakobsen, A. L. The impacts of the EU ETS on Norwegian plant's environmental and economic performance. Clim. Change Econ 11, 2050006 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Colmer, J., Martin, R., Muûls, M. & Wagner, U. J. Does Pricing Carbon Mitigate Climate Change? Firm-Level Evidence from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, discussion paper 1728 (Center for Economic Performance, 2020).

  16. Rafaty, R., Dolphin, G. & Pretis, F. Carbon Pricing and the Elasticity of CO2 Emissions, working Paper No. 140 (Institute for New Economic Thinking, 2020).

  17. Pretis, F. & Schwarz, M. Discovering what mattered: Answering reverse causal questions by detecting unknown treatment assignment and timing as breaks in panel models. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4022745 (2022).

  18. Schwarz, M. & Pretis, F. getspanel. GitHub repository (2021), https://github.com/moritzpschwarz/getspanel/

  19. Estrada, F., Perron, P. & Martínez-López, B. Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat. Geosci. 6, 1050–1055 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hendry, D. F. et al. First In, First Out: Econometric Modelling of UK Annual CO2 Emissions, 1860–2017 (Economics Group, Nuffield College, Univ. of Oxford, 2020).

  21. Piehl, A. M., Cooper, S. J., Braga, A. A. & Kennedy, D. M. Testing for structural breaks in the evaluation of programs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85, 550–558 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schubert, K. Carbon taxation: The French experience, 2014–2019. Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action Workshop on Carbon Taxation, 2019.

  23. Report of the Working Group on Energy Taxation Reform: A Proposal for Implementing the Intentions and Goals of the Government Programme and for Further Development of Energy Taxation (Finnish Ministry of Finance, 2021).

  24. Oster, E. Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: theory and evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 37, 187–204 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Wooldridge, J. Two-way fixed effects, the two-way Mundlak regression, and difference-in-differences estimators. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906345 (2021).

  26. Gillingham, K. T., Houde, S. & van Benthem, A. A. Consumer myopia in vehicle purchases: evidence from a natural experiment. Am. Econ. J. 13, 207–38 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gillingham, K., Kotchen, M. J., Rapson, D. S. & Wagner, G. The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature 493, 475–476 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravigné, E., Ghersi, F. & Nadaud, F. Is a fair energy transition possible? Evidence from the French low-carbon strategy. Ecol. Econ. 196, 107397 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Landis, F., Rausch, S., Kosch, M. & Böhringer, C. Efficient and equitable policy design: taxing energy use or promoting energy savings?. Energy J. 40, 73–104 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vivanco, D. F., Kemp, R. & van der Voet, E. How to deal with the rebound effect? A policy-oriented approach. Energy Policy 94, 114–125 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Freire-González, J. & Ho, M. S. Policy strategies to tackle rebound effects: a comparative analysis. Ecol. Econ. 193, 107332 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Crippa, M. et al. Population, Total Fossil CO2 and GHG Emissions of All World Countries—2019 Report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2019).

  33. GDP (constant 2010 US$). World Bank Open Data (2020), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?view=chart

  34. Population, total. World Bank Open Data, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?view=chart (2020).

  35. Pretis, F. Does a carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from British Columbia. Environmental and Resource Economics (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00679-w

  36. Castle, J. L., Doornik, J. A., Hendry, D. F. & Pretis, F. Detecting location shifts during model selection by step-indicator saturation. Econometrics 3, 240–264 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodman-Bacon, A. Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. J. Econometrics 225, 254–277 (2021).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Pretis, F., Reade, J. & Sucarrat, G. Automated general-to-specific (gets) regression modeling and indicator saturation methods for the detection of outliers and structural breaks. J. Stat. Softw. 86(3), 1–44 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58, 267–288 (1996).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Zou, H. The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 1418–1429 (2006).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Okui, R. & Wang, W. Heterogeneous structural breaks in panel data models. J. Econometrics 220, 447–473 (2021).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Nielsen, B. & Qian, M. Asymptotic properties of the gauge of step-indicator saturation. Working Paper, University of Oxford (2018).

  43. ACEA Tax Guide (ACEA) (2022).

  44. Rumscheidt, S. Road user charging in the European Union. CESifo DICE Rep. 12, 54–57 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Carbon Pricing Dashboard (World Bank, 2022); https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank O. Edenhofer, A.B. Martinez, R. Tol and the participants at the EC2 Conference 2021, the Federal Reserve Virtual Seminar on Climate Economics and the Climate Econometrics Seminar for valuable feedback and suggestions. F.P. and M.S. gratefully acknowledge funding from the Clarendon Fund and the Robertson Foundation. F.P. is also grateful to funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Ministry of Finance or the Austrian government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Berlin, Germany

    Nicolas Koch, Lennard Naumann & Nolan Ritter

  2. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany

    Nicolas Koch & Nolan Ritter

  3. IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany

    Nicolas Koch

  4. WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Berlin, Germany

    Lennard Naumann

  5. Department of Economics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    Felix Pretis

  6. Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Felix Pretis & Moritz Schwarz

  7. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Moritz Schwarz

Authors
  1. Nicolas Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lennard Naumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Pretis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nolan Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moritz Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.P., L.N., M.S. and N.K. designed the analysis. F.P. and M.S. wrote the core programme code. L.N. collected the data. L.N. and N.K. conducted most of the analyses. All authors interpreted results and designed figures. N.R. and N.K. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Koch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks Patrick Bayer, Edgar Hertwich and Md. Saniul Alam for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Sections A–C and Tables 1–12.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koch, N., Naumann, L., Pretis, F. et al. Attributing agnostically detected large reductions in road CO2 emissions to policy mixes. Nat Energy 7, 844–853 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01095-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01095-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing