Chinese Taipei vs United States of America: Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth

Chinese Taipei
0.3287
in 2050
United States of America
0.3328
in 2050
Chinese Taipei rank
36th
United States of America rank
35th

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

  • Chinese Taipei
  • United States of America
00.20.40.6202520372050

How they compare

United States of America currently reports 0.3328 against 0.3287 in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.0041.

Across all 26 years both countries report, United States of America has been ahead every year.

Chinese Taipei ranks 36th and United States of America ranks 35th of 39 countries.

United States of America has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chinese Taipei United States of America Difference Ahead
2020s 0.3031 0.5713 0.2682 United States of America
2030s 0.3211 0.4901 0.169 United States of America
2040s 0.3303 0.3633 0.033 United States of America
2050s 0.3287 0.3328 0.0041 United States of America

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, Chinese Taipei or United States of America?
United States of America, at 0.3328 against 0.3287 in Chinese Taipei as of 2050.
What is the difference in carbon cost to revenues in disclosing firms, adjusted by growth between Chinese Taipei and United States of America?
0.0041, with United States of America ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chinese Taipei and United States of America?
26 years are reported by both, from 2025 to 2050.
How do Chinese Taipei and United States of America rank globally for carbon cost to revenues in disclosing firms, adjusted by growth?
Chinese Taipei ranks 36th and United States of America ranks 35th 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

Chinese Taipei vs United States of America: Carbon Cost to Revenues in Disclosing Firms, Adjusted by Growth. Statizoid, drawing on International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 15 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/compare/carbon-cost-to-revenues-in-disclosing-firms-adjusted-by-growth-factor-us-dollar-scope-1/taiwan/united-states/

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/taiwan/united-states/">Chinese Taipei vs United States of America: 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.