← All Policies

Energy: Adopt Netherlands's Approach

Grade B β€” Moderate Evidence

Reduce energy spending to the cheapest high-performer floor. Netherlands achieves After-Tax Median Income (PPP) 31221.39 at $1064/cap; United States gets 16287.22 at $1991/cap.

Rank #11 of 22 policies

Welfare Score
+38
Causal Confidence
65%
Policy Impact
54%
BH Average
73%

πŸ“Š Bradford Hill Criteria Scores

Temporality100%
Plausibility100%
Coherence100%
Consistency94%
Analogy85%
Strength of Association72%
Specificity59%
Biological Gradient27%
Experiment25%

πŸ’₯ Impact Breakdown

Income Effect
+23%
Health Effect
+0%
Combined Welfare
+38

πŸ§ͺ Natural Experiments

Real-world before/after data from jurisdictions that implemented this policy.

British Columbia, Canada β€” Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

Intervention year: 2008 Β· Carbon tax starting at $10/tonne CO2, rising to $30 by 2012. Revenue-neutral: offset by income/corporate tax cuts

Per Capita Fossil Fuel Consumption
-10.8%
p=<0.001
GDP Growth Rate
-52.0%
p=1.000
Per Capita Fossil Fuel Consumption(index (2008=100))
83941062008 β€” Policy enacted200220142008
GDP Growth Rate(% annual)
-3152008 β€” Policy enacted200320142008
Sources: Murray & Rivers (2015) Energy Policy Β· Elgie & McClay (2013) Canadian Public Policy Β· BC Ministry of Finance carbon tax reports

πŸ“‹ Policy Details

Type
budget allocation
Category
energy
Recommendation
reallocate
Current Status
United States spends $1991/cap, ranks 25/28. 1.9x overspend.
Recommended Target
Netherlands model ($1064/cap floor). $314B/yr savings β†’ Optimization Dividend.
Rationale

Cheapest-high-performer analysis: Netherlands achieves After-Tax Median Income (PPP) 31221.39 at $1064/cap. United States at $1991/cap (1.9x overspend). Top 3: Netherlands ($1064), Norway ($1214), Denmark ($1317). Savings: $314B/yr β†’ $2,363/household/yr as Optimization Dividend.

Blocking Factors
political opposition

πŸ”¬ Evidence Assessment: Bradford Hill Criteria

The Bradford Hill criteria are nine principles used to establish evidence of a causal relationship between a policy intervention and its outcomes. Originally developed for epidemiology (1965), they provide a structured framework for evaluating whether an observed association is truly causal. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 1.

Strength of Association72%

How large is the association between the policy and the outcome? Larger effect sizes increase confidence in causation.

Consistency94%

Has the relationship been observed across different populations, settings, and times? Replication strengthens causal claims.

Temporality100%

Does the policy change precede the outcome change? Temporal ordering is a necessary condition for causation.

Biological Gradient27%

Is there a dose-response relationship? More of the policy leads to more of the effect? Gradients support causation.

Experiment25%

Is there evidence from randomized controlled trials or natural experiments? Experimental evidence is the gold standard.

Plausibility100%

Is there a plausible mechanism explaining how the policy causes the outcome? Mechanistic understanding increases confidence.

Coherence100%

Does the causal interpretation fit with existing knowledge? The relationship should not contradict established facts.

Analogy85%

Are there analogous policies that have produced similar effects? Similar interventions with known effects support the claim.

Specificity59%

Is the effect specific to this policy rather than a general phenomenon? Specific associations are more likely causal.

How is the Causal Confidence Score calculated?

The Causal Confidence Score (CCS) of 65% is a weighted average of the nine Bradford Hill criteria. Experiment and temporality receive higher weights since they provide the strongest evidence for causation. The CCS is then combined with the estimated effect magnitude to produce the Policy Impact Score (PIS) of 54%.

See the Optimal Policy Generator paper for full methodology.

← All Policies

Analysis: Β· Optimitron OPG

Optimitron β€” The Evidence-Based Earth Optimization Game