Kill Bill or tax: An analysis of alternative CO2 price floor options for EU member states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several EU member states are exploring options for setting minimum domestic carbon prices within the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). First, a "TAX" policy would introduce a carbon tax equal to the difference between the prevailing ETS price and the targeted minimum price. Second, a national auction reserve price would "KILL" allowances by invalidating them until the ETS price equalled the national minimum price. Third, a government could require domestic overcompliance and "BILL" covered entities for extra allowances per ton of emissions, thereby increasing demand for allowances and pulling up the ETS price. We explore the implications of these policy options on national and ETS-wide carbon prices, revenues from emissions allowances, emissions, and economic welfare. We find that a national government's preferred unilateral policy will depend on the extent to which it values the fiscal benefits of revenues, which favor TAX or to a lesser degree BILL, versus climate benefits, which favor KILL and also BILL, particularly for jurisdictions with more emissions to leverage for overcompliance. Our analysis can be generalized to other multilateral cap-and-trade systems where participants pursue more stringent internal emission pricing through unilateral policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".