Do decarbonization policies work? Evidence from a global meta-analysis
脱炭素政策は効果があるのか？グローバルメタ分析からの証拠 (AI 翻訳)
Zhang, Weimin, Sovacool, Benjamin K., Cleveland, Cutler
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、99の実証研究を対象とした系統的メタ分析により、37の脱炭素政策手法の効果を評価。市場ベースの手段（炭素価格、排出量取引制度）は有意な排出削減効果を示す一方、ネットメータリング等の政策は逆効果の可能性がある。政策効果はセクター特性や制度条件に依存し、効果的な政策設計の重要性を強調。
English
This meta-analysis of 99 empirical studies covering 37 decarbonization policies finds that market-based instruments like carbon pricing and ETS significantly reduce emissions (10.5-12.6% on average), while some policies like net metering may increase emissions. Effectiveness depends on sector alignment and institutional context, offering insights for policy design.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本は本メタ分析の対象国に含まれていないが、世界の脱炭素政策のエビデンスを整理しており、日本の政策設計（炭素価格、GXリーグ、ETS導入検討）に示唆を与える。日本固有の制度条件を考慮した政策選択の参考となる。
In the global GX context
This global study synthesizes evidence across major economies, reinforcing that carbon pricing and ETS are effective but context-dependent. It provides a benchmark for evaluating policy mixes, relevant to ISSB-aligned disclosure and transition planning frameworks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides standardized effect sizes and cross-policy comparisons that can inform future research on policy effectiveness and sectoral heterogeneity.
🏢実務担当者:Offers evidence on which decarbonization instruments are most effective, supporting corporate strategy and climate transition planning.
🏛政策担当者:Delivers robust empirical evidence on policy performance, crucial for designing cost-effective and sector-specific decarbonization pathways.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Despite the increasing number of net-zero commitments worldwide, a significant gap remains between climate targets and their real-world implementation effects. This study conducts a systematic meta-analysis of 99 empirical studies, integrating more than 1000 standardized effect sizes across 37 decarbonization policy instruments worldwide. The results show that the distribution of samples across regions is highly uneven, with studies from the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Canada, and China accounting for most of the evidence base. We observe that market-based instruments, particularly carbon pricing and taxation measures, as well as several emissions trading systems (ETS) (e.g., the UK's carbon price support, Canada's ETS, the US cap-and-trade, and China's ETS), exhibit statistically significant emission reduction effects. Through multi-model comparisons, our analysis reveals that the average abatement effect of policies ranges between national emissions reductions of 10.5% and 12.6%. However, policies such as net energy metering, emissions performance standards, and the Swiss ETS show counterproductive mitigation effects, e.g. increases in emissions. Our interaction analysis shows that policy effectiveness depends highly on how well a given instrument aligns with sectoral characteristics. Energy efficiency policies perform well when applied within a single sector but perform very differently when used across sectors. Market-based mechanisms also display clear sectoral selectivity in their performance. This study not only reveals the variation in mitigation outcomes across policy instruments and sectors but also provides empirical evidence on how institutional conditions shape policy performance. The findings offer practical insights for building more effective, inclusive, and sustainable pathways toward decarbonization.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openaire https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2026.109145first seen 2026-05-14 21:16:56
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。