From Consensus Among Economists - An Update:
Three of the propositions focus on environmental policy. In contrast to the moderate consensus of disagreement found in the two earlier surveys, the 2011 sample now exhibits a substantial consensus of disagreement with the proposition that reducing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would improve the efficiency of the U.S. economy (#27). There is also substantial agreement with a new proposition in the 2011 survey that the long-run benefits of higher taxes on fossil fuels outweigh the short-run costs (#29). One possible interpretation is that economists generally accept evidence of mankind’s contribution to climate change and would support the decision by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant. A somewhat notable result is the increase, at a 10-percent level of significance, in the proportion of the 2011 sample who disagree with the proposition that pollution taxes or marketable pollution permits are a more efficient approach to pollution control than emission standards (#28). Although only a small proportion of economists disagree, it is a bit surprising, given the standard treatment in microeconomic texts of the production cost efficiencies of taxes and marketable permits relative to emission standards.
Here is the table (edited for relevance):
