The Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) recently hosted our conference, “Towards a Socially Just and Climate-Neutral Polish Economy: Whom Does the State Support?”
Prominent experts, economists, state officials, and parliamentarians came together to tackle the critical questions surrounding the real costs, challenges, and mechanisms of Poland’s green transition.
On Monday, May 25, 2026, Kuba Gogolewski, Program Director of the Mission Possible Foundation, participated in a panel discussion alongside Magdalena Biejat, Deputy Marshal of the Senate; Prof. Beata Zofia Filipiak of the Institute of Economics and Finance at the University of Szczecin; and Prof. Jacek Tomkiewicz, Dean of the College of Finance and Economics at Kozminski University. The session, titled “The Role of the State in Ensuring a Socially Just Energy Transition in Poland – The Obligations and Contribution of the Wealthiest,” was moderated by journalist Jakub Wiech.
Taxes and Emissions
Co-organized by the Polish Network of Economics (PLNE) and the Student Association of Political Economy, the conference examined untried tax reforms in Poland that have successfully penalized carbon-intensive luxury consumption elsewhere. A key focus was the structural wealth inequality embedded in current subsidy programs and tax reliefs aimed at accelerating Poland’s transition to a net-zero economy.
Session I: Public Sentiments on Climate Finance
The first session opened with a keynote presentation by Prof. Krzysztof Kluza from the Department of Economic Analysis of Financial Markets, titled “Social Preferences Regarding the Financing of Climate Policies.” Drawing on his ongoing study launched in November 2024, Prof. Kluza outlined several key findings:
- Fiscal Conservatism: Respondents showed a strong aversion to budget deficits, opposed tax hikes to close those deficits, and expressed only moderate support for new social transfers.
- Unequal Burden: Respondents overwhelmingly felt the government fails to cushion poorer households from the costs of climate policies, let alone ensure that the wealthy foot the bill.
- The Numbers: A staggering 83% of respondents believed that the impacts of government climate policies would either fall equally on everyone (52%) or hit low-income households the hardest (31%). Only 6% believed the wealthy would bear the brunt of the costs.
- Policy Preferences: Energy price hikes were highly unpopular, while emission taxes and luxury taxes were the most preferred fiscal remedies.
State Policies and Tax Reforms
Under Jakub Wiech’s moderation, the panel debated the technical preparation needed to lobby for tax reform, how to reshape the public narrative around climate change, and the gradual phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies combined with targeted protection for transition-affected regions.
Prof. Beata Zofia Filipiak highlighted Greece’s response to its debt crisis over the last decade, where progressive electricity pricing was introduced. This policy is recognized by the European Commission in its May Accelerate EU Catalogue as a prime example of member states mitigating fossil fuel price shocks without weakening the incentive to decarbonize.
Deputy Marshal Magdalena Biejat stressed that citizens and their everyday needs must be central to the climate policy narrative. She voiced understanding for residents of transport-deprived regions who fear that upcoming carbon pricing schemes will drive up the cost of running combustion-engine cars.
Addressing Energy Poverty: Biejat pointed to the Autumn 2022 citizens’ assembly on energy poverty organized by the Stocznia Foundation. Participants did not want short-term crisis management; they demanded systemic changes, greater investment in renewables, and support programs tailored to low-income households that ensure post-investment financial liquidity.
Redefining the Role of the Wealthiest
Kuba Gogolewski argued that Poland has historically failed to design policies that cushion the social blow of energy poverty. He raised a fundamental question: Which social groups and entities are actually best positioned to absorb the costs of rising energy prices, and how do we design policies to reflect that?
Gogolewski cited the Zoe Institute report, “Equitable 1.5 Degree Lifestyles: How Socially Fair Policies Can Support the Implementation of the Green Deal”, which revealed a stark disparity:
- The Bottom 50% of earners successfully cut their greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet Europe’s 2020 climate targets.
- The Top 10% of wealthy Europeans saw their emissions rise across every EU country.
- The Top 1% saw a highly significant increase in their carbon footprint.
Emissions Change (Leading to 2020 Target)
He also referenced the legal justification for Poland’s proposed windfall tax on excess fossil fuel profits, which invokes Article 84 of the Polish Constitution (the principle of universal and equitable taxation). This principle dictates that public burdens must be distributed according to an entity’s actual ability to pay.
Gogolewski suggested extending this constitutional principle to individual wealth. He criticized Poland’s previous fuel subsidy program (“CPN”), which subsidized affluent drivers without any means-testing, calling it an unexamined public-to-wealthy transfer of resources.
Furthermore, data from the World Inequality Database shows that the share of national wealth held by the top 1% of Poles rose by 6 percentage points in the 21st century (from 23.9% to 29.9% in 2024), with the sharpest jump occurring between 2014 and 2016. Meanwhile, the net wealth of the bottom 50% of Polish society remained negative throughout the entire period – meaning their debts consistently exceeded their assets.
Taxing High-Emission Luxury
To bridge this gap, Gogolewski highlighted untapped luxury taxes on high-emission goods:
- Romania: In January 2026, Romania tripled its car tax on luxury vehicles valued over 375,000 RON (~300,000 PLN), applied on top of standard VAT and excise duties.
- United Kingdom: In April of this year, the UK hiked its Air Passenger Duty (APD) for private jets from £673 to £1,141 (~€1,315) per passenger. Affecting around 600 private aircraft, this measure targets high emitters without placing a burden on vulnerable groups, generating an estimated 2.5 billion PLN equivalent for the treasury.
Prof. Jacek Tomkiewicz (member of the Polish Fiscal Council) agreed that the climate-neutral transition currently favors the wealthy, noting the total lack of progressive taxation on energy consumption via VAT or excise duties. However, he placed more faith in market dynamics – such as the plummeting cost of renewables and clean electrification – than in state intervention.
In response, Gogolewski urged the public to move past “either/or” binaries and explore creative fiscal solutions. He cited the UK’s progressive dividend tax system, where dividends are tax-free up to £500 but carry rates of up to 39.35% for higher brackets, alongside its tiered capital gains tax rates (raised to 10.75% and 35.75% in April 2026). Poland, he argued, needs to model exactly how much budget revenue similar progressive policies could yield.
The Path Forward
Magdalena Biejat agreed with Gogolewski, noting that much of the political establishment remains hesitant to impose new burdens on the ultra-wealthy. She warned that since citizens evaluate policy through the lens of fairness, public resistance to climate taxes is entirely rational when the richest do not contribute their fair share.
Prof. Beata Filipiak concluded that the “polluter pays” principle is currently failing because climate costs are routinely passed down directly to households. She called for targeted subsidies to make clean electrified alternatives – such as EVs – affordable for young and lower-income families.
Prof. Tomkiewicz cautioned that progressive energy pricing, while worth exploring, must be carefully designed to avoid unintended injustices. He supported progressive capital gains taxes but urged the government to make Poland’s progressive personal income tax (PIT) genuinely progressive – criticizing policies like the family foundation law that pull in the opposite direction. He also called for reforming the current 8.5% tax rate on rental property income, which is significantly lower than the tax and social security burden placed on labor.
The Germany KlimaGeld Model
To close the debate, Kuba Gogolewski pointed to Germany’s proposed KlimaGeld (Climate Money) mechanism. Under this system, all revenues collected from carbon pricing on transport and heating are redistributed equally to every citizen as a flat-rate dividend.
Because low-income households and those using low-emission transport or heating generate the fewest emissions, they end up as the net financial beneficiaries of the system. This model proves that climate policy can be designed to offer direct, tangible financial rewards to the public rather than just imposing new costs.
We would like to thank our co-organizers, speakers, and WysokieNapiecie.pl for their media patronage. Follow the Mission Possible Foundation on Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube for upcoming session recordings and detailed summaries.
