Australia vs Hong Kong, China: Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth

Australia
0.5254
in 2050
Hong Kong, China
0.5829
in 2050
Australia rank
26th
Hong Kong, China rank
25th

Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth over time

  • Australia
  • Hong Kong, China
00.511.5202520372050

How they compare

Hong Kong, China currently reports 0.5829 against 0.5254 in Australia, a difference of 0.0575.

That makes Hong Kong, China's figure about 1.1 times Australia's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 26 shared years of data; in 2025 it was Australia ahead.

Australia ranks 26th and Hong Kong, China ranks 25th of 39 countries.

Across the 4 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 3 and Hong Kong, China in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Hong Kong, China Difference Ahead
2020s 1.27 0.8216 0.4449 Australia
2030s 0.9402 0.6978 0.2424 Australia
2040s 0.6167 0.5588 0.0579 Australia
2050s 0.5254 0.5829 0.0575 Hong Kong, China

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher carbon cost to revenues in disclosing firms, adjusted by growth, Australia or Hong Kong, China?
Hong Kong, China, at 0.5829 against 0.5254 in Australia as of 2050.
What is the difference in carbon cost to revenues in disclosing firms, adjusted by growth between Australia and Hong Kong, China?
0.0575, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Hong Kong, China?
26 years are reported by both, from 2025 to 2050.
How do Australia and Hong Kong, China rank globally for carbon cost to revenues in disclosing firms, adjusted by growth?
Australia ranks 26th and Hong Kong, China ranks 25th of 39 countries.
Where does this data come from?
International Monetary Fund, published as Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth Factor, US dollar (Scope 1, Not applicable, Below 2°C). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Australia vs Hong Kong, China: Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth. Statizoid, drawing on International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/compare/carbon-cost-to-revenues-in-disclosing-firms-adjusted-by-growth-factor-us-dollar-scope-1/australia/hong-kong-sar-china/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://public-sector.statizoid.com/compare/carbon-cost-to-revenues-in-disclosing-firms-adjusted-by-growth-factor-us-dollar-scope-1/australia/hong-kong-sar-china/">Australia vs Hong Kong, China: Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth Factor, US dollar (Scope 1, Not applicable, Below 2°C)
Source
International Monetary Fund
Licence
IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required)
Coverage
51 places, 1,326 data points, 2025–2050
Last refreshed

This dataset measures the impact of evolving carbon costs on firms’ financial indicators under different transition scenarios. The impacts are aggregated across countries and industries. Carbon Cost to Revenues/Assets indicators give an indication of how high these taxes will be in alternative policy scenarios in comparison to revenues/assets of the disclosing firms, along the transition through 2050. Revenues/Assets at risk indicator shows the share of firms that are expected to be severely impacted by carbon costs under the selected transition scenarios. Each indicator is calculated under two different assumptions: i) constant assets/revenues; and ii) adjusted by growth factors.