Distance to the end: The question of UNsustainability

Marion Davin (), Mouez Fodha () and Thomas Seegmuller ()
Additional contact information
Marion Davin: AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Mouez Fodha: UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris
Thomas Seegmuller: AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) from HAL

Abstract: This paper considers the dynamics of pollution and sustainable growth in a context where the detrimental effects of pollution on total factor productivity can push the economy to a point of collapse. With environmental policy constrained by tax revenues, we investigate how the proximity to collapse – distance to the end – influences the balance between mitigation and adaptation spending. We show that adaptation policies are recommended when pollution intensity is high, whereas mitigation policies may be more effective when pollution intensity is low. Financing these policies by a carbon tax is more effective than an income tax. Examining the welfare of present and future generations, we reveal that the trade-off between mitigation and adaptation does not align across generations: while current generations may prefer adaptation, future generations are more likely to benefit from mitigation.

Keywords: Environmental policy; Fiscal policy; Sustainability; Environmental damage (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-05
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Energy Economics, 2026, 157, ⟨10.1016/j.eneco.2026.109306⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:pseptp:halshs-05840410

DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2026.109306

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Caroline Bauer ().