![Letter value plot for uniform distribution in the range [−3;+3] and standardized normal distribution (source: own study).](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365621634/figure/fig1/AS:11431281098666833@1669042191143/Letter-value-plot-for-uniform-distribution-in-the-range-3-3-and-standardized-normal_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228718 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article
Environmental Taxes in the Member States of the European
Union—Trends in Energy Taxes
Teresa Famulska, Jan Kaczmarzyk and Małgorzata Grząba-Włoszek *
Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Finance, University of Economics in Katowice,
40-287 Katowice, Poland
* Correspondence: malgorzata.grzaba@ue.katowice.pl
Abstract: Environmental taxes, including energy taxes, are applied in all EU Member States. They
are considered important instruments in the implementation of the EU energy and climate policies.
The main purpose of the research presented in this article is to identify trends in the EU Member
States in shaping environmental tax revenues, with particular emphasis on their most important
group, i.e., energy taxes. The researchers sought answers to the research question regarding the
existence of converging trends in this respect. The “letter values” method was used in the research
procedure, which is an extension of the box-plots method. The analysis covered 27 EU Member
States. The data used in the research came from the Eurostat database (2009–2020). As a result of the
research, it was found that in the EU as a whole, there is a slight downward trend in the share of
environmental tax revenues in GDP and the share of environmental tax revenues in total tax
revenues, while the share of energy tax revenues in total environmental tax revenues shows a slight
upward trend. The decomposition of the research and the conducted comparative analysis,
including the determination of specific rankings, showed that both the level and trends in the
shaping of the studied variables vary considerably in the individual EU Member States.
Keywords: environmental taxes; energy taxes; tax revenue; letter values
1. Introduction
Public debate on environmental protection often focuses on the costs associated with
measures taken to limit the negative impact of individuals on the environment [1] (pp.
2,3). Even though sustainable development is essential to maintain and improve the
quality of life and, in the long run, should lead to limiting the destructive impact of
humans on the environment, there is a difference of views on the mechanisms and
methods that can be used in this area and the concern about high investment financial
means allocated to specific projects [2] (p. 4). The equilibrium between the development
in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions, ensured only by the market
mechanism, is not possible; hence, the active role of the state in this respect is justified.
Fiscal policy plays an important role in the pursuit of sustainable development, especially
in the appropriate shaping of income and expenditure instruments. The tax policy
pursued in the European Union countries should be highlighted, as it indicates that taxes
are effective in supporting sustainable development and a type of self-financing
instrument of environmental protection [3] (p. 1). The application of tax mechanisms to
protect the environment is also recommended by the OECD by introducing new taxes,
restructuring existing ones, or reforming legislation and removing subsidies for
environmentally harmful activities [4] (p. 8). Focusing on the pro-environmental goals, it
should be noted that their implementation is possible mainly due to the adoption of
sustainable taxes [5]. The collected and classified resources from environmental taxes can
be used for various purposes. First, they contribute to the increase in budget revenues
Citation: Famulska, T.;
Kaczmarzyk, J.; Grząba-Włoszek, M.
Environmental Taxes in the Member
States of the European
Union—Trends in Energy Taxes.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228718
Academic Editor: Beata Zofia Fil-
ipiak
Received: 29 September 2022
Accepted: 14 November 2022
Published: 20 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 2 of 22
and, thus, allow the debt to be repaid and the budget deficit to be reduced. Second, these
funds may be allocated to tasks related to environmental protection [6] (p. 109), [7] (p.
426).
The concept of environmental taxes was first introduced into the literature by the
English economist Pigou in 1920 [8] (p. 93). He made a distinction between the social costs
of economic activity and the individual costs of the firm, recorded in the profit and loss
account. Pigou noted that the actual social costs of economic activity significantly exceed
the cost of production expressed in monetary units [9]. This dependence concerns the
creation of external effects of economic activity, such as noise, water, air pollution, etc.
These effects were treated by Pigou as the cost of using the “environment” factor by the
producer. The resulting cost is usually not included in the firm’s account but is passed on
to the consumer community—it is subject to the so-called externalization. Externalities
reduce the use value of the environment and, thus, limit the possibility for consumers to
take advantage of the potential welfare. According to Pigou, the task of the tax is to
internalize external costs, that is, assign them to the specific producer that generates them.
The tax levied should be equal to the environmental costs of the producer in question. Full
internalization would contribute to the fact that a firm’s costs would be equated with the
social costs of production and would be entirely charged to the account of the direct
perpetrator of the cost [10] (p. 27–28). As stated by Pigou, the tax should play the role of
steering consumer demand and shifting their demand from non-organic to organic
products. The production of pollution should be accompanied by an assigned price
leading to the state of equilibrium if the costs for the environment would be covered by
tax revenues [11] (p. 116). The presented solution contributes to limiting the negative
impact of external effects on the natural environment [12] (p. 204).
Unfortunately, an attempt to directly implement the tax proposed by Pigou into the
tax system encounters very serious problems, related, among others, to difficulties in
determining the correct assessment of tax. This is due mainly to technical limitations that
make it impossible to accurately estimate external costs, especially expressed in monetary
units. In practice, the amount of taxes corresponding to the Pigou concept is sometimes
determined by the method of trial and error to find the optimal solution for society [13]
(p. 96). Direct application of the tax proposed by Pigou is practically impossible, but it
pioneered the trend of creating taxes related to the environment and transferred them to
practical grounds.
The studies by international institutions and the available databases, including
Eurostat and OECD, frequently use the phrase “environmentally related taxes”
concerning taxes that are most often referred to in the literature as ecological. This is the
result of some considerations and modifications in the interpretation of these pro-
ecological financial instruments. Taxes associated with the environment include all
financial burdens related to the environment, borne by households, business entities, and
other organizations [14] (p. 2). As defined by the ESA, these taxes are also considered
compulsory and unrequited financial charges, whether in cash or in kind, imposed by the
general government or certain European Union institutions. In the case of environmental
taxes, the tax base is the physical unit of the object or service that has a proven negative
impact on the natural environment [15] (p. 9). This can be, for example, the emission of a
kilogram of sulfur dioxide into the air, the consumption of a cubic meter of surface water,
or a plastic shopping bag.
The cited definitions of the environmental tax are considered binding for the
European Union Member States in the reporting obligations for Eurostat under Art. 3 of
the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European environmental
economic accounts [16], which imposes on the Member States the obligation to prepare
environmental tax accounts and submit reporting data to the European Commission (and
consequently to the Eurostat database) [17] (p. 58–59).
Environmental taxes are considered to be key instruments in the implementation of
the EU’s energy and climate policy. They are applicable in all EU Member States.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 3 of 22
Environmental taxes are essential for carrying out the idea of sustainable development [3]
(p. 25–26). By extension, they allow for the collection of funds, encourage activities for
environmental protection, and discourage environmentally harmful activities [18] (p.
157). Environmental taxes are introduced in furtherance of ecological plans while meeting
the state’s fiscal needs is secondary in the case of this type of taxes [10] (p. 25). Their task
is to stimulate economic processes in line with the environmental protection policy [18]
(p. 157).
On the basis of the Eurostat methodology, using the criterion of the subject of
taxation, four groups of taxes related to the environment are distinguished: taxes on
energy, taxes on transport, taxes on emissions, and taxes on natural resources [17] (p. 58–
59).
Focusing on environmental taxes, the group of energy taxes should be considered
particularly important. As specified by Eurostat [15] (p. 9), the subject matter of energy
taxes is:
• energy products for transport purposes: unleaded petrol, leaded petrol, diesel, or
other energy products for transport purposes (e.g., LPG, natural gas, kerosene, or
fuel oil);
• energy products for stationary purposes: light fuel oil, heavy fuel oil, natural gas,
coal, coke, biofuels, electricity consumption and production, district heat
consumption and production, and other energy products for stationary use;
• greenhouse gases: carbon content of fuels, emissions of greenhouse gases (including
proceeds from emission and permits recorded as taxes in the national accounts).
Energy taxes include taxes on energy production and on energy products used for
both transport and stationary purposes. The most important energy products for
transport purposes are petrol and diesel. Energy products for stationary use include fuel
oils, natural gas, coal, and electricity. Taxes on biofuels and on any other form of energy
from renewable sources are included. Taxes on stocks of energy products are also
included. Carbon dioxide (CO2) taxes are included under energy taxes rather than under
pollution taxes due to the following reasons. It is often not possible to identify CO2 taxes
separately in tax statistics because they are integrated with energy taxes, e.g., via
differentiation of mineral oil tax rates according to the carbon content of the fuel. They are
partly introduced as a substitute for other energy taxes and the revenue from these taxes
can be very large compared with the revenue from pollution taxes. This means that
including CO2 taxes with pollution taxes rather than energy taxes would distort both the
time series at the national level and international comparisons. If CO2 taxes are
identifiable, these taxes should be reported as a separate category next to the total energy
taxes. Taxes on greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2 should also be included here
[15] (p. 13).
From the EU’s climate and energy policy perspective, energy is of paramount
importance. With this in mind, the main goal of the presented research was to identify
trends in the EU Member States in shaping environmental tax revenues, with a focus on
their most important group, i.e., energy taxes. The researchers sought answers to the
research question regarding the convergent trends in this respect.
As a result of the research, it was found that in the EU as a whole, there is a slight
downward trend in the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP and the share of
environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues, while the share of energy tax revenues
in total environmental tax revenues shows a slight upward trend. The decomposition of
the research and the conducted comparative analysis, including the determination of
specific rankings, showed that both the level and trends in the shaping of the studied
variables vary considerably in the individual EU Member States.
2. Materials and Methods
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 4 of 22
The research procedure used data covering the following variables: (1) share of envi-
ronmental tax revenue in GDP, (2) share of environmental tax revenues in total tax reve-
nues, and (3) share of energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues. The data used
in the research procedure came from the Eurostat database. The study was conducted for
27 EU Member States for a period of 12 years, i.e., 2009–2020. The rationale for the research
period adopted since 2009 is the fact that this year marked the implementation of the plan
known as the “3 × 20” energy and climate package. This plan required EU member states
to achieve the following goals by 2020:
• a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels,
• up to a 20% increase in the share of energy consumption from renewable energy
sources,
• a 20% increase in energy efficiency to the forecasts for 2020,
• at least a 10% increase in the share of biofuels in the total consumption of transport
fuels.
The plan was adopted at the Council meeting on 11 and 12 December 2008, and voted
by the European Parliament a week later. The plan was finally introduced in 2009 under
the following legal acts:
• Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009,
amending Directive 2003/87/EC to improve and extend the Community greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading scheme—the so-called EU ETS Directive (European
Union Emissions Trading System) [19];
• Decision 2009/406/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009,
on the efforts made by the Member States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet
the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by 2020—the so-
called Non-ECJ Decision [20];
• Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009,
on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive
85/337/EEC, Euratom, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC,
2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC, and Regulation (EC) No.
1013/2006—the so-called CCS Directive (Carbon Capture and Storage) [21];
• Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009,
on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, amending and sub-
sequently repealing Directives 2001/7/EC, and 2003/30/EC—the so-called RES Di-
rective [22].
The legal regulations adopted in 2009 set obligations binding on the Member States
in the field of energy and climate, to which the examined environmental taxes, including
taxes on energy, are to contribute. The research presented in this article has been com-
pleted for 2020, as this is the last year for which a complete data set is available.
For the research procedure, it was assumed that the EU 27 countries form a certain
group, which at a given moment may be characterized by a certain empirical probability
distribution: (1) the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP, (2) the share of environ-
mental tax revenues in total tax revenues, and (3) the share of energy tax revenues in en-
vironmental tax revenues. These variables may vary over time. The “letter values”
method was used to synthetically present the studied variables, which is an extension of
the box-plots method [23]. In the “letter values” method, the median is determined first
(by eliminating 50% of the group that has a greater and lesser value than the median), and
then the next “letter values” are calculated, consistently denoting smaller, extreme tail
fractions of the surveyed group: lower and upper fourth (quartiles), lower and upper
eighth, lower and upper sixteenth, lower and upper thirty-second, etc. [24]. “The letter
values are those order statistics having specific depths, defined recursively starting with
the median. The depth of the median, d1, of a sample of size n is d1 = (1 + n)/2; the depths
of successive letter values (F = fourths, E = eighths, D = sixteenths, C = thirty-seconds, ...)
are defined recursively as di = (1 + |di−1|)/2.” [25]. “Letter value” plots were compiled on
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 5 of 22
the basis of Eurostat data using a solution built into the Palisade Decision Tools 8.2.1 pack-
age. The shape of the “letter value plot” depends on the distribution. It is worth distin-
guishing between the “letter value plot” for uniform and normal distributions (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Letter value plot for uniform distribution in the range [−3;+3] and standardized normal
distribution (source: own study).
In addition to the “letter value” method used to identify the trend, the research was
extended to establish specific rankings. The rankings made it possible to determine the
differentiation of the EU member states in terms of the studied variables. Ranking of coun-
tries according to the analyzed variable: (1) the share of environmental tax revenues in
GDP, (2) the share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues, and (3) the share
of energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues, was prepared on the basis of the
weighted average of the variable for the country concerned during the period considered.
The examined time series covered 12 periods. It was assumed that the last values are the
most important, and the first—the least important. The weighting of 12 for the last values
and the weighting of 1 for the first values were adopted, respectively.
3. Results
In the analyzed period, the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP showed a
downward trend. This is confirmed by the change in the median, which increased from
2.52% to 2.64% in 2009–2016, but from 2017 onwards, a decrease to 2.38% in the median
share of environmental tax revenues in GDP was observed in 2020. Observing the abscissa
behavior, increasingly smaller fractions of the distribution of the share of environmental
ta x revenues in GD P in a gi ven yea r, it sh ould be stated that it also confir ms the down ward
trend. Admittedly, the upper quarter of the observations (upper F) did not exceed 3% in
2009–2013, reaching 3.22% in 2016; however, from 2017 onwards, it decreased to 2.99% in
2020. Similar conclusions were drawn from the observation of the upper eighth, sixteenth,
and thirty-second parts in the analyzed period (after an increase, a decrease was ob-
served). Observation of the lower cut-off fractions indicates a downward trend in the
lower fourth, eighth, sixteenth, and thirty-second upper parts (with a minimum correction
in 2013–2015), as are the observations of the extreme values marked with dots in the graph.
It is also worth pointing to a noticeable change in the shape of the distribution, which
tends to become uniform from a more normal distribution. This means that increasingly
more EU 27 countries had values closer to the extreme values of the share of environmen-
tal tax revenues in GDP (Figure 2 and Table A2).
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 6 of 22
Figure 2. Letter value plot for the share of environmental tax revenues in the GDP of the EU27 in
2009–2020 (source: own study).
It should be noted that the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP in the ana-
lyzed period decreased by an average of 0.5 pp in 16 of the EU27 countries. At the same
time, it increased in the remaining 11 countries by 0.4 pp, on average. The weighted aver-
age ratio in the period under examination was the highest in Greece (3.71%), with an in-
crease from 2.08% in 2009 to 3.77% in 2020. The second country was Denmark (3.68%),
where there was a decrease in the discussed ratio from 3.99% to 3.17%. The lowest level
of the weighted average ratio was observed for Luxembourg (1.76%) and Spain (1.8%). In
Spain, there was an increase in the ratio in the discussed period (by 0.13 pp), and in Lux-
embourg a decrease (by 0.99 pp). The difference between the largest and the smallest
weighted average share of environmental tax revenues in GDP was 1.95 pp. Thus, the
considered ratio in Greece was more than twice as high as that in Luxembourg, which
indicates its significant differentiation. A detailed ranking of countries is presented in Ta-
ble 1.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 7 of 22
Table 1. Ranking of the EU27 based on the criterion of the weighted average level of the share of
environmental tax revenues in GDP in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
Country/Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Weigh.A. Simp.A. Chart Change
Greece 2.08 2.67 2.96 3.33 3.66 3.74 3.83 3.81 4.03 3.80 3.87 3.77 3.71 3.46
1.69
Denmark 3.99 4.02 4.02 3.97 4.14 4.00 3.97 3.91 3.67 3.62 3.29 3.17 3.68 3.81 −0.82
Slovenia 3.48 3.61 3.45 3.83 3.92 3.86 3.88 3.88 3.67 3.40 3.34 2.95 3.54 3.61 −0.53
Netherlands 3.47 3.49 3.41 3.24 3.26 3.31 3.32 3.35 3.34 3.34 3.39 3.16 3.31 3.34 −0.31
Italy 2.78 2.78 3.03 3.46 3.43 3.57 3.39 3.51 3.34 3.31 3.25 3.04 3.30 3.24 0.26
Croatia 2.82 3.01 2.65 2.53 2.82 3.14 3.33 3.44 3.47 3.52 3.46 3.28 3.26 3.12 0.46
Latvia 2.64 2.96 3.08 2.99 3.17 3.34 3.50 3.58 3.49 3.37 2.94 3.10 3.25 3.18 0.46
Finland 2.52 2.67 3.00 2.96 2.91 2.88 2.89 3.08 2.96 2.93 2.81 2.75 2.89 2.86 0.23
Bulgaria 2.84 2.75 2.67 2.65 2.86 2.84 2.95 2.98 2.80 2.62 2.99 3.03 2.86 2.83 0.19
Cyprus 2.78 2.75 2.75 2.58 2.72 3.06 3.04 2.93 3.01 2.93 2.54 2.48 2.79 2.80 −0.30
Estonia 2.94 2.93 2.72 2.73 2.56 2.66 2.73 2.97 2.86 2.75 3.21 2.45 2.79 2.79 −0.49
Poland 2.66 2.71 2.63 2.59 2.42 2.58 2.65 2.71 2.68 2.71 2.54 2.55 2.61 2.62 −0.11
Belgium 2.36 2.45 2.57 2.52 2.52 2.54 2.55 2.67 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.54 2.60 2.56 0.18
Malta 3.10 2.80 3.05 2.79 2.59 2.74 2.70 2.64 2.54 2.48 2.46 2.27 2.57 2.68 −0.83
Portugal 2.44 2.43 2.32 2.19 2.20 2.27 2.42 2.58 2.58 2.57 2.53 2.38 2.44 2.41 −0.06
Slovakia 1.97 2.07 2.42 2.38 2.52 2.54 2.50 2.49 2.54 2.46 2.39 2.38 2.44 2.39 0.41
Hungary 2.62 2.64 2.54 2.53 2.43 2.41 2.47 2.53 2.44 2.27 2.26 2.18 2.38 2.44 −0.44
Austria 2.36 2.34 2.42 2.41 2.38 2.39 2.38 2.34 2.39 2.28 2.28 2.10 2.31 2.34 −0.26
France 1.87 1.89 1.92 1.96 2.03 2.03 2.16 2.24 2.31 2.37 2.31 2.18 2.19 2.11 0.31
Sweden 2.75 2.66 2.44 2.40 2.32 2.17 2.15 2.22 2.11 2.09 2.05 2.02 2.17 2.28 −0.73
Romania 1.79 2.11 1.95 2.01 2.06 2.38 2.47 2.40 1.94 1.97 2.12 1.92 2.11 2.09 0.13
Czechia 2.29 2.27 2.33 2.22 2.09 2.12 2.05 2.10 2.01 1.96 2.04 1.93 2.06 2.12 −0.36
Germany 2.26 2.15 2.18 2.12 2.06 1.99 1.92 1.86 1.81 1.77 1.76 1.71 1.87 1.97 −0.55
Lithuania 2.02 1.83 1.68 1.64 1.68 1.73 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.98 1.89 1.93 1.86 1.84 −0.09
Ireland 2.27 2.45 2.45 2.38 2.48 2.40 1.89 1.89 1.76 1.57 1.41 1.21 1.80 2.01 −1.06
Spain 1.62 1.65 1.59 1.58 1.92 1.87 1.93 1.87 1.84 1.83 1.77 1.75 1.80 1.77 0.13
Luxembourg 2.38 2.26 2.30 2.23 2.05 1.89 1.76 1.66 1.64 1.70 1.75 1.39 1.76 1.92 −0.99
Another analyzed variable is the share of environmental tax revenues in total tax
revenues. The median share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues was
7.05% in 2009. A year later, it increased to 8% and fell to 7.36% in 2011. Then, the median
increased to 8.05% in 2014 and stabilized at approximately 8% by 2016. Since 2017, a sys-
tematic decline in the median share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues
was observed to the level of 6.76%. The top quarter of the group (top F) fluctuated at ap-
proximately 8.68% (average) in 2009–2014 and increased to 9.04% in 2015. Since 2016, a
systematic decline in the upper F letter value to 7.48% in 2020 was observed. At the same
time, a systematic decline in the lower F letter value from 6.43% to 5.59% was observed.
The area between the lower and upper F letter value narrowed significantly at the end of
the period under consideration. The higher share of environmental tax revenues in total
tax revenues in 2014–2016 is confirmed by the analysis of the remaining letter values and
the extreme values themselves. Their observation also leads to the conclusion that the
general trend of the share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues in the EU27
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 8 of 22
in the analyzed period was downward. It is difficult to classify the distribution of the
group in particular periods as clearly tending toward uniform or normal (Figure 3 and
Table A3).
Figure 3. Letter value plot for the share of environmental tax revenues in the total tax revenues of
the EU27 in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
The share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues decreased in 19 coun-
tries in the analyzed period by an average of 1.39 pp. This ratio increased in the remaining
8 countries by an average of 0.73 pp. The highest share of environmental tax revenues in
total tax revenues, measured by the weighted average, was observed for Latvia and Bul-
garia at the level of 10.69% and 9.84%, respectively. In Latvia, it increased by 0.2 pp, and
in Bulgaria, it fell by 0.73 pp. The highest increase in the ratio was observed in Greece
from 6.77 to 9.69%, which took 3rd place in the ranking. The lowest level of the weighted
average level of the share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues was ob-
served in the research conducted for Luxembourg and Germany. It was 4.75% and 4.78%,
respectively. In Luxembourg, it dropped by 2.93 pp (the largest decrease in the discussed
group of countries) in the analyzed period, and in Germany by 1.58 pp. It should be noted
that the difference between the largest and the smallest weighted average share of envi-
ronmental tax revenues in total tax revenues was 5.94 pp in the studied group of countries.
This indicates a large variation in the size of the ratio in question in the Member States of
the European Union because, in the country with the highest ratio, it was more than twice
as high as in the country with the lowest. A detailed ranking of countries is presented in
Table 2.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 9 of 22
Table 2. Ranking of the EU27 based on the criterion of the weighted average level of the share of
environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
Country/Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Weigh.A. Simp.A. Chart Change
Latvia 9.62 10.47 10.56 10.28 10.81 11.28 11.75 11.66 11.23 10.87 9.58 9.82 10.69 10.66
0.20
Bulgaria 10.62 10.81 10.48 10.15 10.15 9.99 10.23 10.20 9.38 8.81 9.85 9.89 9.84 10.05 −0.73
Greece 6.77 8.26 8.64 9.15 10.20 10.29 10.46 9.82 10.24 9.49 9.79 9.69 9.76 9.40 2.92
Slovenia 9.32 9.49 9.17 10.11 10.45 10.31 10.34 10.31 9.84 9.08 8.93 7.84 9.45 9.60 −1.48
Croatia 7.78 8.41 7.56 7.10 7.78 8.63 9.09 9.29 9.38 9.36 9.20 8.85 8.84 8.54 1.07
Netherlands 9.87 9.83 9.62 9.12 9.05 8.93 8.99 8.73 8.63 8.62 8.64 7.97 8.73 9.00 −1.90
Malta 9.74 9.04 9.61 8.85 8.24 8.70 9.12 8.59 8.40 8.20 8.25 7.66 8.44 8.70 −2.08
Estonia 8.42 8.82 8.65 8.61 8.09 8.27 8.19 8.85 8.71 8.31 9.57 7.20 8.43 8.47 −1.22
Cyprus 8.76 8.67 8.68 8.15 8.56 9.09 9.17 9.05 9.12 8.80 7.37 7.15 8.41 8.55 −1.61
Denmark 8.88 8.92 8.92 8.67 8.95 8.17 8.57 8.55 8.02 8.15 7.04 6.76 7.98 8.30 −2.12
Romania 7.11 8.00 6.89 7.21 7.52 8.66 8.79 9.27 7.78 7.59 8.14 7.30 7.96 7.86 0.19
Italy 6.70 6.73 7.36 8.03 7.93 8.32 7.92 8.33 7.99 7.94 7.70 7.11 7.79 7.67 0.41
Poland 8.50 8.66 8.27 8.06 7.55 8.05 8.17 8.11 7.85 7.70 7.23 7.12 7.74 7.94 −1.38
Ireland 8.05 8.81 8.78 8.43 8.61 8.34 8.15 8.02 7.78 7.01 6.41 6.04 7.48 7.87 −2.01
Slovakia 6.85 7.43 8.35 8.28 8.16 7.98 7.70 7.55 7.51 7.24 6.95 6.81 7.45 7.57 −0.04
Portugal 8.18 8.00 7.20 6.91 6.49 6.65 7.03 7.59 7.56 7.41 7.33 6.76 7.17 7.26 −1.42
Finland 6.19 6.57 7.18 6.98 6.71 6.62 6.65 7.05 6.90 6.92 6.63 6.52 6.76 6.74 0.33
Lithuania 6.68 6.46 6.20 6.09 6.23 6.31 6.40 6.48 6.49 6.58 6.23 6.26 6.36 6.37 −0.42
Hungary 6.74 7.17 7.00 6.49 6.32 6.26 6.37 6.47 6.43 6.16 6.22 6.01 6.33 6.47 −0.73
Czechia 7.05 6.89 6.85 6.43 5.99 6.21 5.98 5.99 5.67 5.44 5.67 5.35 5.85 6.13 −1.70
Belgium 5.46 5.61 5.80 5.56 5.48 5.57 5.66 6.03 6.02 6.02 6.07 5.82 5.85 5.76 0.36
Austria 5.73 5.68 5.87 5.75 5.58 5.59 5.51 5.61 5.71 5.39 5.35 5.00 5.47 5.56 −0.73
Spain 5.45 5.25 5.08 4.88 5.80 5.52 5.70 5.54 5.42 5.28 5.09 4.74 5.28 5.31 −0.71
Sweden 6.30 6.21 5.81 5.69 5.46 5.16 5.05 5.03 4.80 4.76 4.79 4.73 5.04 5.32 −1.57
France 4.43 4.47 4.43 4.40 4.45 4.45 4.73 4.91 4.98 5.13 5.10 4.78 4.81 4.69 0.35
Germany 5.85 5.77 5.78 5.53 5.36 5.20 4.95 4.76 4.61 4.45 4.39 4.27 4.78 5.08 −1.58
Luxembourg 6.55 6.32 6.34 6.12 5.66 5.23 5.05 4.67 4.45 4.33 4.42 3.62 4.75 5.23 −2.93
The key component of environmental taxes is energy taxes; hence, on the basis of the
adopted research objective, the trend of the share of energy tax revenues in environmental
taxes revenues was subjected to a detailed analysis. The median of the variable increased
in the analyzed period from 78.94% to 80.27%. The upper and lower F letter values in-
creased—in the upper case, from 85.05% to 88.09%. However, in the case of the lower one,
from 64.52% to 72.45%. The spread decreased from 20.53 pp up to 15.64 pp. The central
part between the upper and lower F letter value moved up. The upper E letter value in-
creased from 89.53% to 91.52%. The lower one changed from 58.69% to 57.61%, after an
initial increase. The spread between the upper and lower E letter value increased from
30.84 pp up to 33.91 pp. Observing the changes in the distribution, it should be noted that
there is increasing right-handedness, which also confirms the increase in the share of en-
ergy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues in the analyzed period in the examined
group (Figure 4 and Table A4).
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 10 of 22
The share of energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues (Table 3) increased
in 19 of the 27 EU countries during the analyzed period, on average by 4.8 pp. In the re-
maining 8 countries, it decreased, on average, by 4.6 pp, while the difference between the
largest and the smallest weighted average share of energy tax revenues in environmental
tax revenues was as high as 42.16 pp; thus, the largest analyzed ratio was significantly
higher than the smallest—1.8 times. The highest weighted average share of energy tax
revenue in environmental tax revenue was observed in the Czech Republic. It was 93.06%.
It increased by 0.72 pp over the period considered. Luxembourg was the second country
in the ranking, with a weighted average share of energy tax revenues in environmental
tax revenues equal to 92.13%. However, in Luxembourg, there was a decrease. The highest
increase in the share of energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues was observed
in Cyprus, from 58.69% to 77.51% (by 18.82 pp).
Figure 4. Letter value plot for the share of energy tax revenues in the environmental tax revenues
of the EU27 in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
The lowest share of energy tax revenue in environmental tax revenue was observed
in Malta and Denmark. The weighted average level of this share amounted to 50.90% and
55.03%, respectively. In Denmark, the share of energy tax revenues in environmental tax
revenues decreased by 5.83 pp. In Malta, it increased by 3.64 pp. The largest decrease was
observed in Austria—from 65.75% to 57.61%.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 11 of 22
Table 3. Ranking of the EU27 based on the criterion of the weighted average level of the share of
energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
Country/Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Weigh.A. Simp.A. Chart Change
Czechia 92.84 92.66 92.94 92.86 92.66 92.72 92.53 92.94 92.93 93.03 93.61 93.55 93.06 92.94
0,72
Luxembourg 92.14 92.61 93.35 93.21 92.47 92.28 91.18 91.27 91.85 92.50 92.79 91.61 92.13 92.27 −0,53
Lithuania 94.54 96.10 94.21 94.13 91.56 91.58 90.08 90.55 90.65 89.95 90.82 90.04 91.06 92.02 −4,50
Romania 84.87 84.33 87.34 86.33 86.18 88.75 89.59 89.93 92.64 92.80 93.18 92.43 90.60 89.03 7,56
Estonia 85.58 87.80 87.12 88.31 86.86 87.00 87.28 87.92 88.03 87.98 91.85 91.52 88.81 88.11 5,94
Slovakia 84.95 86.57 88.30 88.52 87.70 87.65 88.22 87.84 88.28 88.14 88.34 89.68 88.28 87.85 4,73
Bulgaria 87.85 88.13 88.71 88.97 87.81 87.55 88.20 87.34 87.23 85.98 88.46 88.33 87.75 87.88 0,48
Poland 83.11 84.22 84.74 85.91 88.39 86.23 85.64 86.50 87.03 87.49 87.02 87.86 86.79 86.18 4,75
Latvia 89.53 86.05 82.36 82.95 82.97 84.18 84.42 85.17 85.16 85.02 83.53 83.07 84.17 84.53 −6,46
Slovenia 84.02 84.40 83.92 85.45 84.34 84.21 84.21 84.85 84.60 83.68 82.72 80.59 83.55 83.92 −3,43
Germany 85.14 84.58 83.98 83.83 83.68 83.70 83.05 82.83 83.00 82.83 82.75 82.82 83.15 83.52 −2,32
Spain 81.17 81.61 81.79 81.33 82.22 83.25 83.52 82.73 82.79 82.69 82.10 81.83 82.42 82.25 0,66
France 77.94 79.14 78.52 77.94 79.05 79.25 81.21 82.48 82.98 83.51 83.85 83.92 81.97 80.81 5,98
Italy 78.94 79.08 80.24 81.39 81.56 82.42 81.06 81.36 80.81 80.46 80.83 80.27 80.87 80.70 1,33
Greece 63.29 74.51 76.18 78.99 80.64 80.25 79.69 79.12 79.80 78.41 78.69 77.51 78.59 77.26 14,22
Sweden 80.73 81.40 81.26 81.32 80.23 79.39 78.24 78.65 77.73 76.51 75.75 75.13 77.77 78.86 −5,60
Cyprus 58.69 65.87 70.39 72.28 77.73 77.76 78.72 78.83 78.98 79.14 78.94 77.51 77.29 74.57 18,82
Hungary 76.22 78.65 78.18 74.87 75.53 76.01 75.30 76.07 75.08 75.03 75.79 76.42 75.82 76.10 0,20
Croatia 69.16 71.56 68.09 68.28 71.59 72.73 74.91 75.43 74.65 77.02 76.76 76.70 74.60 73.07 7,54
Portugal 75.28 72.83 74.42 76.84 75.34 73.21 73.32 73.29 72.06 72.08 72.34 75.51 73.57 73.88 0,23
Belgium 61.81 64.03 64.79 65.98 66.06 67.76 68.40 70.47 71.16 71.01 70.97 68.62 69.00 67.59 6,81
Finland 67.64 64.25 66.07 67.36 66.77 67.16 68.11 67.85 66.55 66.66 68.53 69.77 67.65 67.23 2,13
Austria 65.75 66.33 66.68 65.63 65.93 63.00 63.59 63.03 62.63 61.31 61.34 57.61 62.32 63.57 −8,13
Ireland 58.94 61.42 64.03 63.12 61.22 60.64 61.14 61.27 62.27 62.04 60.06 61.51 61.46 61.47 2,58
Netherlands 53.71 53.83 53.98 54.84 58.41 56.75 55.78 56.25 55.58 55.98 57.28 56.58 56.22 55.75 2,88
Denmark 58.05 58.81 59.84 60.18 58.28 58.06 55.53 55.44 54.40 53.91 51.71 52.22 55.03 56.37 −5,83
Malta 44.66 48.64 50.81 52.77 52.30 53.64 51.59 52.33 50.83 50.27 51.05 48.30 50.90 50.60 3,64
4. Discussion
The conducted research confirmed that environmental taxes constitute an important
element in the tax systems of all EU Member States. This is also evidenced by the studies
of other authors carried out in 1991–2021, using various variables. A summary of selected
studies from this period is presented in Table A1 [26–77]. Since the introduction of envi-
ronmental taxes to the literature by Pigou in 1920, many authors have presented papers
describing various instruments of tax impact on the behavior of entrepreneurs and con-
sumers, including Goulder [63], Kirchgassner, Muller, Savioz [78], and Stern [79]. An ex-
ample of one of the most interesting concepts for the application of environmental taxes
is the so-called standard emission tax proposed by W. J. Baumol and W. E. Oates [80], [81]
(p. 239).
As part of the literature review, attention is also drawn to studies on the impact of
environmental taxes on reducing environmental degradation, presented, among others,
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 12 of 22
by Lee and Roland-Holst [69], Morley [61], Miller and Vela [71], and Haites [72]. In turn,
studies conducted in recent years by Bashir, MA, Shahbaz, Jiao [44], Ulucak R., Danish K.,
Kassouri Y. [47], Shahzad [46], Akkaya, Hepsag [48], Esen, Dündar [49], Sarıgül, Topçu
[50], and Wolde-Rufael, Mulat-Weldemeskel [51] have concerned the relationship of en-
vironmental taxes and carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gases. For example,
studies by Sen and Vollebergh [39] and Hashmi and Alam [41] indicated that energy taxes
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. The discrepancies and
ambiguities in the results of these studies were noted by, among others, Gerlagh and Lise
[31], Loganathan et al. [33], and Radulescu et al. [36].
Liobikienè et al. [43] conducted a study in the EU28 countries on the relationship
between energy tax and greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy consumption, fossil
energy consumption, and energy intensity, proving that environmental taxes did not re-
duce greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, González-Sánchez and Martína-Or-
tega [45] demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU28 decreased, but other
policy instruments mitigating the increases in emissions contributed to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions to a greater extent than taxes on coal.
Research by Ignjatijević, Đorđević [62], Morley, Abdullah [61], Pautrel [60], Leiter,
Parolini, Winner [59], Ricci [58], Andersen [57], Myles [56], and others indicated that there
is a relation between the amount of environmental taxes and the GDP value. For example,
Ignjatijević, Đorđević [62] analyzed the relationship between economic growth and envi-
ronmental performance, aiming to emphasize the areas that were under constrain as well
as the areas that are positively affected by economic growth. The authors investigated the
Environmental Performance Index during the period 2010–2018. The findings revealed
that environmental policy directly and positively influences economic performance by
improving environmental conditions. However, the authors feared that the demands of
the green economy already create high costs and that its benefits will be materialized in
the long term. Finally, we note sustainable business operations—the green economy re-
quires timely harmonization in order to fulfill the goals of environmental protection.
At this point, it is also worth mentioning the publications of Dulebenets [73], Tran,
Mao, Siebers [74], Rengs, Scholz-Wäckerle, and van den Bergh [75], presenting the impact
of taxes on carbon dioxide emissions on the activities of enterprises as well as employment
and innovation. Some authors also proved the relationship between the occurrence of en-
vironmental taxes and the level of welfare in many countries, for example, Goulder [63],
Patuelli, Nijkamp, Pels [64], Anger, Bohringer, Loschel [65], Gago, Labandeira, López-
Otero [66], Freire-Gonzalez [67], and Kuralbayeva [68].
In our research, we searched for trends in the EU Member States in the shaping of
environmental tax revenues, with particular emphasis on their most important group, i.e.,
energy taxes. On the basis of our research, it should be concluded that in the EU27, there
is a significant variation in (1) the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP, (2) the
share of environmental tax revenues in total tax revenues, and (3) the share of energy tax
revenues in environmental tax revenues. We have identified that while (1) the share of
environmental tax revenue in GDP and (2) the share of environmental tax revenue in total
tax revenue is on a downward trend, (3) the share of energy tax revenue in environmental
tax revenue has a slight upward trend. The rationale for the downward trend in 2016–
2020 for (1) the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP and (2) the share of environ-
mental tax revenues in total tax revenues are the provisions of the Paris Agreement rati-
fied by the EU and applied to international law on 4 November 2016, which was the result
of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21, in the French capital, held on
30 November–12 December 2015. The most important agreement was to limit the global
temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level and to make
efforts not to exceed the temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius [82]. To achieve these
goals, all countries have committed themselves to present a specific joint action plan [18].
Developed countries have committed themselves to providing financial support to devel-
oping countries by providing them with USD 100 billion annually for investments aimed
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 13 of 22
at reducing carbon dioxide emissions [83]. As a consequence, the EU Member States
achieved the assumed environmental objectives quite quickly, which contributed to the
decrease of the analyzed ratios: (1) the share of environmental tax revenues in GDP and
(2) the share of environmental tax revenues in tax revenues. On the other hand, there were
countries with a low level of economic development aimed at improving the ratios over a
longer period and consistently taxing activities negatively affecting the environment,
which increased by the analyzed shares.
The observed relation allows for the formulation of specific conclusions regarding
the importance of environmental taxes in the EU Member States in the future. On the one
hand, the overall downtrend is expected to continue. If the energy and climate goals set
by the EU in the next 30 years are achieved, the tax base of environmental taxes will de-
crease, and, thus, their fiscal significance will decrease. However, this prediction is debat-
able considering the unprecedented energy crisis in 2022 caused by Russia's aggression
against Ukraine. In some EU Member States, it caused a departure from the processes of
decarbonization of the economy, and it is also difficult to determine for how long. Conse-
quently, the upward trend in energy tax revenues may continue and even strengthen. On
the other hand, the importance of environmental tax revenues, apart from the tax base, is
determined by their structure. Thus, by making appropriate changes in the structure of
the applicable taxes or by introducing new taxes, it is possible to cause an upward trend
in the total environmental tax revenues. Environmental taxes are expected to play a major
role in the transition to a climate-neutral economy by the EU by 2050. In our opinion, the
growing importance of environmental taxes requires not only corrections of the applicable
solutions but also permanent tax reform. We recognized the desirable ecological tax re-
form in all EU Member States, and at the same time, we noted that it will be, if it is under-
taken, a difficult, long-term process. The question of the harmonization of this reform in
the EU remains open, as it is not favored by, among others, the significant differentiation
in the meaning of environmental taxes in individual countries identified in our research.
It should be noted that different research methods were used in all the other authors’
studies mentioned. Research on environmental taxes is often conducted using an interna-
tional comparative analysis based on ratios, such as in the works of Mełecki [14], Rubio,
Rubio, Moreno [76], Delgado, Freire-González, and Presno [77].
For example, Delgado, Freire-González, and Presno [77] studied the evolution of total
environmental taxation and its two main subcategories, energy and transport taxes, as a
percentage of GDP and as a share of total taxation in the EU, through a club convergence
analysis of the period 1995–2016. From the GDP perspective, the results showed three
groups of countries or clubs for the total environmental taxation and only two clubs for
the two other categories analyzed. Considering the taxation structure perspective, two
clusters emerge for the total environmental taxes, three for the energy case and only one
for the transport taxation, denoting overall convergence in this case. These results indi-
cated a high grade of convergence in environmental taxation in the EU.
Considering the complexity of the research problem, a comparative assessment based
on the nominal value of environmental tax revenues is difficult. Therefore, it seems more
reliable to use relative measures – this is also the approach we used in our research. In the
reports of international institutions and scientific studies, the ratios presenting environ-
mental tax revenues expressed as a percentage of total tax revenues and/or environmental
tax revenues to GDP are most often used for this purpose. Studies also use a ratio showing
the amount of environmental tax income per capita [15,84]. To make international com-
parisons, the structure of environmental tax revenues is often used based on separate ge-
neric groups, such as energy, transport, environmental pollution, and natural resources.
Very often, in the reports of international institutions, the generic groups of “environmen-
tal pollution” and “natural resources” are treated as one whole. The classification of a
given tax into the appropriate generic group is determined by its subject of taxation. In
some cases, it is not clear-cut and requires verification, and the final decision is made by
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 14 of 22
the statistical office of a given country. Moreover, certain general rules also apply in this
respect [14] (p. 2).
In our research, to synthetically present the studied variables, we used the “letter
values” method, which is an extension of the box-plots method. The application of this
method allowed for the assessment of the importance of environmental tax revenues, in-
cluding energy taxes in the EU27, and a detailed assessment of changes in the surveyed
group over time. Conclusions obtained through the assessment of “letter value plots”
were then confirmed by examining the absolute changes of individual variables taken into
account in the research procedure. The originality of our research should be emphasized.
This is evidenced by the fact that so far, no other authors have used the “letter values”
method to assess trends in the EU Member States in shaping environmental tax revenues,
with particular emphasis on energy taxes. At the same time, we hope to contribute to the
dissemination of this relatively new method in research involving international compar-
ative analyses.
In addition, the research results obtained by us imply further research. It is very im-
portant to undertake research aimed at establishing the cause-and-effect relations be-
tween public revenues from individual environmental taxes and the non-fiscal functions
assigned to them. The significant differentiation in the EU27 in the level and trends of the
studied variables, as identified by us, indicates that these relations are complex. At the
same time, a new research question arises: to what extent are these relations a derivative
of the limitation of factors with a negative impact on the environment by individual coun-
tries, and to what extent are they determined by the construction of specific environmental
taxes? It would also be particularly important to study the effectiveness of environmental
taxes in contributing to the achievement of specific EU climate and energy goals. We also
hope that the results of our research will prove useful to the governments, not only in the
EU Member States but also in other countries that construct tax systems. At the present
time, it is not possible to change taxes in a given country without simultaneous analysis
of taxes applied in other countries. The international context is very important due to the
phenomenon of international tax competition. The experience of the other countries may
be an inspiration for developing domestic solutions. This applies to environmental taxes,
which are "young" taxes. It should be stated that they are at the stage of being shaped as
a specific category of taxes, and at this stage, it is necessary to conduct international com-
parative analyzes.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; methodology, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-
W.; software, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; validation, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; formal analysis, T.F., J.K.,
and M.G.-W.; investigation, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; resources, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; data curation,
T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; writing—original draft preparation, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; writing—review
and editing, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; visualization, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; supervision, T.F., J.K. and
M.G.-W.; project administration, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.; funding acquisition, T.F., J.K. and M.G.-W.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was founded by the University of Economics in Katowice.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this work were produced by Eurostat.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 15 of 22
Appendix A
Table A1. Selected research on environmental taxes (1991–2021) (source: own study).
Reserach Authors Year Journal Title
Environmental taxes and
CO2
Repetto R., Dower R., Jenkins J., Geoghegan
R. 1992 World Resource Institute Green fees: how a tax shift can work for the environment and the economy
Grubb M., Edmonds P., Brink M., Morrison J. 1993
Annual Review of Energy
and the Environment The cost of limiting fossil-fuel CO2 emissions
Nordhaus W, 1993 American Economic Review Optimal greenhouse gas reductions and tax policy in the ‘DICE’ model
Oates W. E. 1993 Southern Economic Journal
Green taxes: can we protect the environment and improve the tax system
at the same time?
Tamura H., Nakanishi R., Hatono I., Umano
M. 1996 IFAC Proceedings Volumes
Is environmental tax effective for total emission control of carbon dioxide?
systems analysis of an environmental-economic model
Gerlagh R., Lise W 2005
Ecological Economics
Carbon taxes: A drop in the ocean, or a drop that erodes the stone?
The effect of carbon taxes on technological change
Meng S., Siriwardana M., McNeill J. 2013
Environmental and Resource
Economics The environmental and economic impact of the carbon tax in Australia
Loganathan, N., Shahbaz, M., Taha, R. 2014
MPRA Paper
The effect of green taxation and economic growth on environment hazards:
the case of Malaysia
Filipović S., Golušin M. 2015
Journal of Cleaner
Production
Environmental taxation policy in the EU—new methodology approach
Sasmaz M. U. 2016
Global Journal on Humanites
& Social Sciences Validity of double dividend hypothesis in EU-15 countries
Radulescu M., Sinisi C. I., Popescu C., Iacob S.
E. 2017
Sustainability
Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: double
dividend theory
Aydin C., Esen Ö. 2018
Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management
Reducing CO2 emissions in the EU member states: Do environmental taxes
work?
Lin B., Jia Z. 2018 Energy
The energy, environmental and economic impacts of carbon tax rate and
taxation industry: a CGE based study in China
Sen S., Vollebergh H. 2018
Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management The effectiveness of taxing the carbon content of energy consumption
Timilsinas G. R. 2018
Development Research
Group, Working Paper Series
Where is the carbon tax after thirty years of research?
Hashmi R., Alam K. 2019
Journal of Cleaner
Production
Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2
emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: a panel
investigation
He P., Chen L., Zou X., Li S., Shen H., Jian J. 2019
Sustainability
Energy taxes, carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption and
economic consequences: a comparative study of nordic and G7 countries
Liobikienè G., Butkus M., Matuzevičitè K. 2019
Resources
The contribution of energy taxes to climate change policy in the European
Union
Bashir M. F., MA B., Shahbaz M., Jiao Z. 2020 Plos One The nexus between environmental tax and carbon emissions with the roles
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 16 of 22
Of environmental technology and financial development
González-Sánchez M., Martín-Ortega J. L 2020 Sustainability
Greenhouse gas emissions growth in Europe: a comparative analysis of
determinants
Shahzad U. 2020
Environmental Science
and Pollution Research
Environmental taxes, energy consumption, and environmental quality:
theoretical survey with policy implications
Ulucak R., Danish K., Kassouri Y. 2020 Sustainable Development
An assessment of the environmental sustainability corridor: investigating
the non-linear effects of environmental taxation on CO2 emissions
Akkaya Ş., Hepsag A. 2021
Environmental Science and
Pollution Research
Does fuel tax decrease carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey? Evidence from
an asymmetric nonlinear cointegration test and error correction model
Esen Ö., Dündar M. 2021
Journal of Emergy Economies
and Policy Do energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint? Evidence from Turkey
Sarıgül S. S., Topçu A. B. 2021
International Journal of
Business & Economic Studies The impact of environmental taxes on carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey
Wolde-Rufael Y., Mulat-Weldemeskel E. 2021
Environmental Science
and Pollution Research
Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2
emissions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies
Rybak A., Joostberens J., Manowska A., Pielot
J. 2022 Energies
The Impact of Environmental Taxes on the Level of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Poland and Sweden
Environmental taxes and
PKB
Pearce D. 1991 Economic Journal The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming
Bovenberg A, de Mooij R. 1997 Journal of Public Economics Environmental tax reform and endogenous growth
Fisher E.O., van Marrewijk C. 1998
Journal of International
Trade & Economic
Development Pollution and economic growth
Myles G. 2000 Fiscal Studies Taxation and Economic Growth
Andersen M.S. 2007
National Environment
Research Institute Carbon-energy taxation contributed to economic growth
Ricci F. 2007 Ecological Economics Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth
Leiter A.M, Parolini A., Winner H. 2009
Faculty of Economics and
Statsitics University of
Innsbruck Working Papers
Environmental regulation and investment: evidence from european
industries
Pautrel X. 2009 Ecological Economics
Pollution and life expectancy: How environmental policy can promote
growth
Morley B. Abdullah S. 2010
Bath Economics Research
Papers
Environmental taxes and economic growth: evidence from panel causality
tests
Ignjatijević S., Đorđević D. 2020
Menadzment Finansije i
Pravo
Determining relationship between economic growth and environmental
protection
Environmental taxes
and welfare
Goulder L. H. 1995
International Tax and Public
Finance Environmental taxation and the ‘Double Dividend’: A reader’s guide
Patuelli R., Nijkamp P., Pels E. 2005 Ecological Economics
Environmental tax reforms and the double dividend: A meta-analytical
performance assessment
Anger N., Bohringer C., Loschel A. 2010 Ecological Economics
Paying the piper to call the tune? A metaregression analysis of the double-
dividend hypothesis
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 17 of 22
Gago A., Labandeira X., López-Otero X. 2014
Hacienda Pública Española
Review of Public Economics A panorama on energy taxes and green tax reforms
Freire-Gonzalez J. 2018 Journal of Policy Modelling
Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE
modelling literature: A critical review
Kuralbayeva K. 2019
Environmental and Resource
Economics
Environmental taxation, employment and public spending in developing
countries
Environmental impact of
taxes
Lee H., Roland-Holst D. 1997
Journal of Development
Economics The environment and welfare implications of trade and tax policy
Morley B. 2012 Applied Economics Letters Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes
Miller S., Vela M. A. 2018
Inter-American Development
Bank Working Paper Series Are environmentally related taxes effective?
Haites E. 2018 Climate Policy
Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: what have
we learned?
Impact of taxes on CO2
Emission on enterprises
Dulebenets M.A. 2018
International Journal of
Transportation
Science and Technology
Green vessel scheduling in liner shipping: modeling carbon dioxide
emission costs in sea and at ports of call
Tran T.H., Mao Y., Siebers P.O. 2019 Sustainability
Optimising decarbonisation investment for firms towards environmental
sustainability
Rengs B., Scholz-Wäckerle M. and van den
Bergh J. 2020
Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization
Evolutionary macroeconomic assessment of employment and innovation
impacts of climate policy packages
Environmental taxes-
international comparative
analyses
Małecki P. 2016 Optimum Podatki ekologiczne w Polsce na tle innych krajów Unii Europejskiej
Rubio E. V., Rubio J. M. Q,, Moreno V. M. 2017
Revista de Economía
Mundial
Environmental fiscal effort: spatial convergence within economic policy on
taxation
Delgado F. J., Freire-González J., Presno M. J. 2022
Economic Analysis and
Policy Environmental taxation in the European Union: Are there common trends?
Table A2. Letter values—share of environmental tax revenues in the GDP of the EU27 in 2009–2020
(source: own study).
Measure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Minimum 1.62 1.65 1.59 1.58 1.68 1.73 1.76 1.66 1.64 1.57 1.41 1.21
Maximum 3.99 4.02 4.02 3.97 4.14 4.00 3.97 3.91 4.03 3.80 3.87 3.77
Mean 2.56 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.64 2.68 2.69 2.72 2.66 2.60 2.57 2.43
90% CI ±0.1778 ±0.1757 ±0.1776 ±0.1928 ±0.2036 ±0.2084 ±0.2154 ±0.2197 ±0.2207 ±0.2110 ±0.2067 ±0.2025
Mode 2.36 2.45 2.42 2.38 2.06 2.54 2.47 2.63 2.54 2.93 2.54 1.93
Median 2.52 2.66 2.57 2.53 2.52 2.54 2.55 2.64 2.58 2.57 2.53 2.38
Std Dev 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.62
Skewness 0.67 0.68 0.41 0.63 0.89 0.56 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.20 0.10
Kurtosis 3.74 3.95 3.73 3.34 3.29 2.44 2.24 2.05 2.11 1.98 2.24 2.61
Values 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00
Errors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 18 of 22
Filtered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M upper 2.52 2.66 2.57 2.53 2.52 2.54 2.55 2.64 2.58 2.57 2.53 2.38
M lower 2.52 2.66 2.57 2.53 2.52 2.54 2.55 2.64 2.58 2.57 2.53 2.38
M spread 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F upper 2.80 2.79 2.98 2.88 2.89 3.10 3.18 3.22 3.18 3.12 3.10 2.99
F lower 2.27 2.27 2.33 2.23 2.15 2.22 2.16 2.23 2.06 2.04 2.09 1.98
F spread 0.54 0.53 0.66 0.65 0.74 0.88 1.03 0.99 1.12 1.09 1.02 1.02
E upper 3.10 3.01 3.08 3.33 3.43 3.57 3.50 3.58 3.49 3.40 3.34 3.16
E lower 1.97 2.07 1.95 2.01 2.05 1.99 1.92 1.89 1.84 1.83 1.77 1.75
E spread 1.13 0.94 1.13 1.32 1.38 1.58 1.58 1.69 1.65 1.57 1.57 1.41
D upper 3.48 3.55 3.43 3.65 3.79 3.80 3.86 3.85 3.67 3.57 3.43 3.23
D lower 1.83 1.86 1.80 1.80 1.98 1.88 1.87 1.87 1.79 1.74 1.76 1.55
D spread 1.65 1.69 1.63 1.85 1.82 1.92 1.99 1.98 1.89 1.84 1.67 1.68
C upper 3.74 3.82 3.74 3.90 4.03 3.93 3.93 3.90 3.85 3.71 3.67 3.53
C lower 1.71 1.74 1.64 1.61 1.80 1.80 1.81 1.76 1.70 1.64 1.58 1.30
C spread 2.03 2.08 2.10 2.29 2.23 2.13 2.12 2.14 2.15 2.08 2.09 2.23
Outliers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Table A3. Letter values—the share of environmental tax revenues in the total tax revenues of the
EU27 in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
Measure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Minimum 4.43 4.47 4.43 4.40 4.45 4.45 4.73 4.67 4.45 4.33 4.39 3.62
Maximum 10.62 10.81 10.56 10.28 10.81 11.28 11.75 11.66 11.23 10.87 9.85 9.89
Mean 7.47 7.66 7.60 7.45 7.47 7.55 7.62 7.65 7.44 7.22 7.11 6.71
90% CI ±0.5192 ±0.5423 ±0.5365 ±0.5421 ±0.5801 ±0.6110 ±0.6396 ±0.6282 ±0.6021 ±0.5651 ±0.5619 ±0.5451
Mode 6.74 8.00 5.83 10.18 5.57 8.66 5.05 4.78 7.78 5.27 5.18 6.76
Median 7.05 8.00 7.36 7.21 7.55 8.05 7.92 8.02 7.78 7.41 7.04 6.76
Std Dev 1.58 1.65 1.64 1.65 1.77 1.86 1.95 1.92 1.84 1.72 1.71 1.66
Skewness 0.22 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.13 0.21 0.05 0.05 -0.01 0.10 0.26
Kurtosis 2.25 2.22 2.21 2.06 2.10 2.03 2.12 2.15 2.23 2.25 1.90 2.69
Values 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00
Errors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Filtered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M upper 7.05 8.00 7.36 7.21 7.55 8.05 7.92 8.02 7.78 7.41 7.04 6.76
M lower 7.05 8.00 7.36 7.21 7.55 8.05 7.92 8.02 7.78 7.41 7.04 6.76
M spread 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F upper 8.63 8.82 8.73 8.64 8.59 8.68 9.04 8.95 8.67 8.47 8.45 7.48
F lower 6.43 6.39 6.27 6.11 5.90 5.90 5.84 6.01 5.87 5.73 5.87 5.59
F spread 2.21 2.43 2.46 2.54 2.69 2.78 3.20 2.94 2.81 2.74 2.58 1.90
E upper 9.62 9.49 9.61 9.15 10.15 9.99 10.23 9.82 9.38 9.08 9.57 8.85
E lower 5.73 5.68 5.80 5.56 5.48 5.23 5.05 5.03 4.98 5.13 5.09 4.74
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 19 of 22
E spread 3.89 3.81 3.81 3.59 4.67 4.76 5.18 4.79 4.40 3.95 4.48 4.11
D upper 9.81 10.15 10.05 10.13 10.33 10.30 10.40 10.26 10.04 9.43 9.69 9.76
D lower 5.46 5.43 5.43 5.21 5.41 5.18 5.00 4.84 4.71 4.61 4.61 4.50
D spread 4.35 4.72 4.62 4.93 4.92 5.12 5.40 5.42 5.34 4.82 5.08 5.26
C upper 10.25 10.64 10.52 10.22 10.63 10.80 11.11 10.99 10.74 10.18 9.82 9.86
C lower 4.94 4.86 4.76 4.64 4.91 4.81 4.84 4.72 4.53 4.39 4.41 3.95
C spread 5.31 5.78 5.77 5.58 5.73 5.99 6.27 6.27 6.21 5.79 5.42 5.91
Outliers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Table A4. Letter values—the share of energy tax revenues in environmental tax revenues of the
EU27 in 2009–2020 (source: own study).
Measure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Minimum 44.66 48.64 50.81 52.77 52.30 53.64 51.59 52.33 50.83 50.27 51.05 48.30
Maximum 94.54 96.10 94.21 94.13 92.66 92.72 92.53 92.94 92.93 93.03 93.61 93.56
Mean 75.43 76.64 77.12 77.54 77.68 77.67 77.58 77.84 77.77 77.61 77.82 77.44
90% CI ±4.403 ±4.102 ±3.918 ±3.849 ±3.734 ±3.782 ±3.851 ±3.840 ±3.991 ±4.018 ±4.122 ±4.202
Mode 84.99 87.50 93.50 88.60 87.97 83.71 83.59 88.56 92.47 92.78 83.00 76.88
Median 78.94 79.14 80.24 81.32 80.64 80.25 81.06 81.36 80.81 80.46 80.83 80.27
Std Dev 13.43 12.51 11.95 11.74 11.39 11.54 11.75 11.72 12.18 12.26 12.57 12.82
Skewness −0.56 −0.57 −0.58 −0.56 −0.71 −0.70 −0.85 −0.85 −0.82 −0.82 −0.78 −0.84
Kurtosis 2.37 2.50 2.53 2.39 2.52 2.39 2.72 2.72 2.73 2.77 2.74 2.88
Values 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00
Errors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Filtered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M upper 78.94 79.14 80.24 81.32 80.64 80.25 81.06 81.36 80.81 80.46 80.83 80.27
M lower 78.94 79.14 80.24 81.32 80.64 80.25 81.06 81.36 80.81 80.46 80.83 80.27
M spread 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F upper 85.05 85.32 85.93 86.12 86.52 86.62 86.46 86.92 87.13 86.73 87.68 88.09
F lower 64.52 66.10 67.39 67.82 69.18 70.24 70.86 71.88 71.61 71.54 71.65 72.45
F spread 20.53 19.22 18.54 18.30 17.34 16.37 15.60 15.04 15.52 15.19 16.03 15.64
E upper 89.53 88.13 88.71 88.97 88.39 88.75 89.59 89.93 90.65 89.95 91.85 91.52
E lower 58.69 61.42 64.03 63.12 61.22 60.64 61.14 61.27 62.27 61.31 60.06 57.61
E spread 30.84 26.71 24.68 25.84 27.18 28.11 28.46 28.67 28.39 28.64 31.79 33.91
D upper 92.49 92.64 93.15 93.04 92.01 91.93 90.63 90.91 92.25 92.65 92.99 92.02
D lower 55.88 56.32 56.91 57.51 58.35 57.41 55.66 55.85 54.99 54.95 54.50 54.40
D spread 36.61 36.32 36.24 35.52 33.67 34.52 34.97 35.06 37.26 37.70 38.49 37.62
C upper 93.69 94.38 93.78 93.67 92.56 92.50 91.85 92.10 92.79 92.92 93.40 92.99
C lower 49.18 51.24 52.40 53.81 55.29 55.20 53.56 53.88 52.62 52.09 51.38 50.26
C spread 44.50 43.15 41.38 39.86 37.28 37.30 38.30 38.22 40.17 40.83 42.02 42.73
Outliers 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
References
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 20 of 22
1. Ziolo, M.; Kluza, K.; Spoz, A. Impact of Sustainable Financial and Economic Development on Greenhouse Gas Emission in the
Developed and Converging Economies. Energies 2019, 12, 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12234514.
2. Hamilton, C.; Schlegelmilch, K.; Hoerner, A.; Milne, J. Environmental Tax Reform; Australian Conservation Foundation: Mel-
bourne, Australia, 2000.
3. Bryndziak, S. Opodatkowanie jako instrument polityki ochrony środowiska. Stud. Prawno-Ekon. 2014, 18, 25–37.
4. OECD, Environmental Taxes and Green Tax Reform, Paris 1997. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/sd-roundtable/paper-
sandpublications/39372634.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2022).
5. Cieślukowski, M. Podstawowe kategorie podatkowe w ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodow-
ska Sect. H Oeconomia 2016, 50, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.17951/h.2016.50.1.83.
6. Głuchowski, J. Podatki Ekologiczne; Dom Wydawniczy ABC: Warszawa, Poland, 2002.
7. Walczak, B. Podatki ekologiczne jako instrumenty polityki państwa w zakresie ochrony środowiska. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw.
Szczecińskiego Ekon. Probl. Usług 2010, 604, 424–433. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn. 2015.409.12.
8. Spulber, N.; Sabbaghi, A. Economics of Water Resources; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
9. Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare, 4th ed.; Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London, UK, 1938.
10. Grądalski, F. Teoretyczne podstawy ekologicznego systemu podatkowego. Gospod. Nar. Pol. J. Econ. 2002, 10, 25–31.
11. Guziejewska, B. Podatek ekologiczny jako instrument nowoczesnej polityki fiskalnej. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Szczecińskiego Ekon.
Probl. Usług 2009, 36, 115–121.
12. Mankiw, N.G.; Taylor, M.P. Economics; Cengage Learning EMEA: London, UK, 2006.
13. Sterner, T. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management; World Bank Publications: Geneva, Swit-
zerland, 2002.
14. Małecki, P. Podatki ekologiczne w Polsce na tle innych krajów Unii Europejskiej. Optimum. Econ. Stud. 2016, 2, 3–15.
15. Eurostat, Environmental Taxes. A Statistical Guide. 2013 Edition. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-
manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-gq-13-005 (accessed on 4 September 2022).
16. Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 691/2011 z dnia 6 lipca 2011 roku w sprawie europejskich rachunków
ekonomicznych środowiska, Dz.U. L 192 z 22.7.2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/PL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0691&from=EN (accessed on 4 September 2022).
17. Bartniczak, B.; Ptak, M. Opłaty i Podatki Ekologiczne. Teoria i Praktyka; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we
Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2011.
18. Żylicz, T. Ekonomia Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych; Wydawnictwo PWE: Warszawa, Polska, 2004.
19. Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 Amending Directive 2003/87/EC to Im-
prove and Extend the Community Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Scheme—The So-Called EU ETS Directive
(European Union Emissions Trading System). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS-
erv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0063:0087:PL:PDF (accessed on 4 September 2022).
20. Decision 2009/406/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Efforts Made by the Member States
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Meet the Community’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Commitments by 2020—
The So-Called Non-ECJ Decision. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS-
erv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0136:0148:PL:PDF (accessed on 4 September 2022).
21. Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Geological Storage of Carbon
Dioxide and Amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, Euratom, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC,
2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC, and Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006—The So-Called CCS Directive (Carbon
Capture and Storage). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0031&from=PL (accessed on 4 September 2022).
22. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy
from Renewable Sources, Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/7/EC, and 2003/30/EC—The So-Called RES
Directive. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF (accessed
on 4 September 2022).
23. Tukey, J.W. Exploratory Data Analysis; Wesley Pub. Co.: Addison, TX, USA, 1977.
24. Cox, N.J. Speaking Stata: Letter Values as Selected Quantiles. Stata J. 2016, 16, 1058–1071,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X16016004.
25. Hofmann, H.; Wickham, H.; & Kafadar, K. Letter-Value Plots: Boxplots for Large Data. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 2017, 26, 469–477.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2017.1305277.
26. Repetto, R.; Dower, R.; Jenkins, J.; Geoghegan, R. Green Fees: How a Tax Shift Can Work for the Environment and the Economy;
World Resource Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
27. Grubb, M.; Edmonds, P.; Brink, M.; Morrison, J. The cost of limiting fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1993,
18, 397–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.18.110193.002145.
28. Nordhaus, W. Optimal greenhouse gas reductions and tax policy in the ‘DICE’ model. Am. Econ. Rev. 1993, 83, 313–317.
29. Oates, W.E. Green taxes: Can we protect the environment and improve the tax system at the same time? South. Econ. J. 1993, 61,
915–922. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060731.
30. Tamura, H.; Nakanishi, R.; Hatono, I.; Umano, M. Is environmental tax effective for total emission control of carbon dioxide?
Systems analysis of an environmental-economic model. IFAC Proc. Vol. 1996, 29, 5435–5440.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 21 of 22
31. Gerlagh, R.; Lise, W. Carbon taxes: A drop in the ocean, or a drop that erodes the stone? The effect of carbon taxes on techno-
logical change, Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54, 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.037.
32. Meng, S.; Siriwardana, M.; McNeill, J. The environmental and economic impact of the carbon tax in Australia. Environ. Resour.
Econ. 2013, 54, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9600-4.
33. Loganathan, N.; Shahbaz, M.; Taha, R. The Effect of Green Taxation and Economic Growth on Environment Hazards: The Case of
Malaysia; MPRA Paper 56843; MPRA: Munich, Germany, 2014.
34. Filipović, S.; Golušin, M. Environmental taxation policy in the EU—New methodology approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 308–
317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.002.
35. Sasmaz, M.U. Validity of double dividend hypothesis in EU-15 countries. Glob. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2016, 2, 30–36.
https://doi.org/10.18844/gjhss.v2i2.412.
36. Radulescu, M.; Sinisi, C.I.; Popescu, C.; Iacob, S.E. Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double Divi-
dend Theory. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111986.
37. Aydin, C.; Esen, Ö. Reducing CO2 emissions in the EU member states: Do environmental taxes work? J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
2018, 61, 2396–2420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1395731.
38. Lin, B.; Jia, Z. The energy, environmental and economic impacts of carbon tax rate and taxation industry: A CGE based study
in China. Energy 2018, 159, 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.167.
39. Sen, S.; Vollebergh, H. The effectiveness of taxing the carbon content of energy consumption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 92,
74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.08.017.
40. Timilsinas, G.R. Where Is the Carbon Tax After Thirty Years of Research?; World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8493;
World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
41. Hashmi, R.; Alam, K. Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and eco-
nomic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1100–1109.
42. He, P.; Chen, L.; Zou, X.; Li, S.; Shen, H.; Jian, J. Energy Taxes, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic
Consequences: A Comparative Study of Nordic and G7 Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6100.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216100.
43. Liobikienè, G.; Butkus, M.; Matuzevičitè, K. The Contribution of Energy Taxes to Climate Change Policy in the European Union
(EU). Resources 2019, 8, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020063.
44. Bashir, M.F.; MA, B.; Shahbaz, M.; Jiao, Z. The nexus between environmental tax and carbon emissions with the roles of envi-
ronmental technology and financial development. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242412.
45. González-Sánchez, M.; Martín-Ortega, J.L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Determi-
nants. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031012.
46. Shahzad, U. Environmental taxes, energy consumption, and environmental quality: Theoretical survey with policy implica-
tions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 24848–24862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08349-4.
47. Ulucak, R.; Danish, K.; Kassouri, Y. An assessment of the environmental sustainability corridor: Investigating the non-linear
effects of environmental taxation on CO2 emissions. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1010–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2057.
48. Akkaya, Ş.; Hepsag, A. Does fuel tax decrease carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey? Evidence from an asymmetric nonlinear
cointegration test and error correction model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 35094–35101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-
12907-9.
49. Esen, Ö.; Dündar, M. Do energy taxes reduce the carbon footprint? Evidence from Turkey. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2021, 6, 179–
186,.
50. Sarıgül, S.S.; Topçu, A.B. The impact of environmental taxes on carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Stud. 2021,
3, 43–54.
51. Wolde-Rufael, Y.; Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2 emis-
sions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 22392–22408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-
11475-8.
52. Rybak, A.; Joostberens, J.; Manowska, A.; Pielot, J. The Impact of Environmental Taxes on the Level of Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions in Poland and Sweden. Energies 2022, 15, 4465. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124465.
53. Perce, D. The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ. J. 1991, 101, 938–948. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233865.
54. Bovenberg, A.; de Mooij, R. Environmental tax reform and endogenous growth. J. Public Econ. 1997, 63, 207–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(96)01596-4.
55. Fisher, E.O.; van Marrewijk, C. Pollution and economic growth. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 1998, 7, 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199800000004.
56. Myles, G. Taxation and Economic Growth. Fisc. Stud. 2000, 21, 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00583.x.
57. Andersen, M.S. Carbon-Energy Taxation: Lessons from Europe; National Environment Research Institute News: London, UK, 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570683.001.0001.
58. Ricci, F. Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 688–699,
//https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.014.
59. Leiter, A.M.; Parolini, A.; Winner, H. Environmental Regulation and Investment: Evidence from European Industries; Working Papers
No. 2009-04; Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck: Innsbruck, Austria, 2009.
Energies 2022, 15, 8718 22 of 22
60. Pautrel, X. Pollution and life expectancy: How environmental policy can promote growth. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1040–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.011.
61. Morley, B.; Abdullah, S. Environmental Taxes and Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Causality Tests. Bath Economics
Research Working Papers 2010, 04/10. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46468103_Environmen-
tal_Taxes_and_Economic_Growth_Evidence_from_Panel_Causality_Tests (accessed on 4 September 2022).
62. Ignjatijević, S.; Đorđević, D. Determining relationship between economic growth and environmental protection. Menadz. Finans.
I Pravo 2020, 6, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.5937/Oditor2001036I.
63. Goulder, L.H. Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader’s guide. Int. Tax Public Financ. 1995, 2, 157–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495.
64. Patuelli, R.; Nijkamp, P.; Pels, E. Environmental tax reforms and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assess-
ment. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.021.
65. Anger, N.; Bohringer, C.; Loschel, A. Paying the piper to call the tune? A metaregression analysis of the double-dividend hy-
pothesis. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1495–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.003.
66. Gago, A.; Labandeira, X.; López-Otero, X. A panorama on energy taxes and green tax reforms. Hacienda Pública Española Rev.
Public Econ. 2014, 208, 145–190. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.14.1.5.
67. Freire-González, J. Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review.
J. Policy Model. 2018, 40, 194–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.11.002.
68. Kuralbayeva, K. Environmental taxation, employment and public spending in developing countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2019,
72, 877–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0230-3.
69. Lee, H.; Roland-Holst, D. The environment and welfare implications of trade and tax policy. J. Dev. Econ. 1997, 52, 65–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(96)00439-7.
70. Morley, B. Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2012, 19, 1817–1820.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.650324.
71. Miller, S.; Vela, M.A. Are Environmentally Related Taxes Effective? Inter-American Development Bank. Working Paper Series
4685. 2018. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/financial/mainstream/idb-tax.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2022).
72. Haites, E. Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: What have we learned? Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 955–966.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1492897.
73. Dulebenets, M.A. Green vessel scheduling in liner shipping: Modeling carbon dioxide emission costs in sea and at ports of call.
Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 7, 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.09.003.
74. Tran, T.H.; Mao, Y.; Siebers, P.O. Optimising decarbonisation investment for firms towards environmental sustainability. Sus-
tainability 2019, 11, 5718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205718.
75. Rengs, B.; Scholz-Wäckerle, M.; van den Bergh, J. Evolutionary macroeconomic assessment of employment and innovation
impacts of climate policy packages. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2020, 169, 332–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.11.025.
76. Rubio, E.V.; Rubio, J.M.Q.; Moreno, V.M. Environmental fiscal effort: Spatial convergence within economic policy on taxation.
Rev. De Econ. Mund. 2017, 45, 87–100.
77. Delgado, F.J.; Freire-González, J.; Presno, M.J. Environmental taxation in the European Union: Are there common trends? Econ.
Anal. Policy 2022, 73, 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.12.019.
78. Kirchgässner, G.; Müller, U.A.; Savioz, M. Ecological Tax Reform and Involuntary Unemployment, Simulation Results for Swit-
zerland; Discussion Paper No. 9806; University of St. Gallen: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 1998.
79. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
80. Baumol, W.J.; Oates, W.E. The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. Swed. J. Econ. 1971, 73, 42–55.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3439132.
81. Grądalski, F. System Podatkowy w Świetle Teorii Optymalnego Opodatkowania; Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoły Głównej Handlowej:
Warszawa, Poland, 2006. https://doi.org/10.33119/gn/113864.
82. United Nations, Framework Convention on the Climate Change, Conference of the Parties Twenty First Session Paris 30 No-
vember to 11 December 2015, FCCC/CP/2015/L9. Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
(accessed on 4 September 2022).
83. Piwowarczyk-Ściebura, K.; Okulski, T. Wdrażanie polityki klimatyczno-energetycznej w TAURON POLSKA ENERGIA S. A.
Polityka Energetyczna Energy Policy J. 2016, 19, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.24425/124496.
84. Eurostat, Statistics Explained. Environmental Tax Statistics—Detailed Analysis. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/euro-
stat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Environmental (accessed on 4 September 2022).
