Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38161416›Full record

ReviewiScience2024

Prioritize carbon pricing over fossil-fuel subsidy reform.

Jeroen van den Bergh, Cees van Beers, Lewis C King

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Recent trends in microbial production of alkanes.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jeroen van den BerghInstitute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, UAB campus, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.
Cees van BeersFaculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Economics of Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, the Netherlands.
Lewis C KingInstitute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, UAB campus, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While many climate activist groups enthusiastically advocate for the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies, we argue that this overstates both the climate effectiveness and political feasibility of such a strategy. Through synthesizing information from various global studies, we show that subsidies contribute to a relatively small portion of climate change and local externality problems, likely accounting for around 1%. We further argue that reform of fossil-fuel subsidies is hampered by various political and social factors, more so than the diffusion of carbon pricing. Based on these results, we argue that the far greater problem of unpriced externalities warrants a redirection or expansion of the enthusiasm for subsidy reform toward carbon pricing. This makes sense also as subsidy reform and carbon pricing essentially represent two sides of the same coin since both contribute to climate mitigation by raising fossil-fuel prices.

Indexed as

Environmental policyGlobal change

Identifiers

PMID38161416
PMCPMC10755355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.