In recent years, Japan has implemented various measures on taxation, including the introduction of the Tax forClimate Change Mitigation (the so-called ‘carbon tax’) in 2012 and greening vehicle taxation. However,Japan’s CO2 emissions from energy use reached a record 1.224 billion tonnes in FY2013. The Japanesegovernment is expected to mobilize every possible means in order to reduce CO2 emissions, and taxationpolicy is one of the tools effective for this purpose. Therefore, to suggest future directionsin greeningJapan’s taxation system, we compare environmental taxes in Japan and four EU countries (Finland,Denmark, Germany and the UK), which are environmentallyadvanced countries on taxation. Wesummarize the latest trend of environmental taxes in Japan then compare it with experiences in EUcountries. For energy taxes, tax rates on fuels in Japan are lower than those of EU countries and, in all thefour EU countries, tax rates on fuels have been raised year by year, but in Japan, for example, the gasoline taxrate has not been increased since 1993. When it comes to carbon taxes, differences between Japan and EUcountries are tax rates and use of revenues. In Japan, carbon tax rates are relatively lower than EUcountries and tax revenue goes into a special account and the revenue is used for promoting renewable energy. In Japan, the emissions reduction effect of taxing carbon is relatively lower than the effect of revenueuse, which is –0.2 per cent and –0.4 to –2.1 per cent respectively. For vehicle taxes, tax bases of Japan’s vehicle taxesare acquisition price, weight of vehicles, and so on, which is different from EU countries’ fuel efficiency. ThusJapan’s vehicle taxes are not functioning as a driver to promote purchasing more energy-efficientvehicles. Based on the results of these comparisons, we expect the Japanese government to put a higher tax on fuel consumption to track the international trend of carbon pricing and thus reduce energyconsumption, and to introduce CO2-based vehicle taxes to increase the share of environmentallyfriendly vehicles in Japan.
Browse by title
Lorenzo del Federico and Silvia Giorgi
The chapter first aims to analyse the legal nature of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and, in particular, the hypothesis that considers taxes as obligations to acquire allowances for a valuable consideration. It is worth specifyingthat an intangible ‘allowance’ is one thing, but quite another is the obligation to buy a certain number of allowances corresponding to the polluting emissions. The ETS seems to be a hybrid and multipurpose instrument, with a fiscal function that is neither exclusive, nor prevalent. There is, in fact, a combination of priority environmental aims and energy efficiency promotion aims.Against this background, the ETS should be coordinated with CO2 taxation in order to avoid overlaps between the ETS on the one hand, and taxation serving the same purpose on the other. Indeed, although the ETS allocation system has changed over the course of time, moving from the original criterion of free allocationto the auctioning allocation, derogations from the general rule of auction are still provided. It is clear that only allowances allocated through auction are in line with environmental principles. The cap represents the acceptable risk: the amount of emissions included in the cap follows the polluter-pays-principle as economic compensation for the emitted tonnes of CO2. Beyond such a limit, further allowances cannot be emitted and, as a consequence, no further emissionsare tolerable, according to the prevention principle. The cap itself is the measure identified ex ante to reduce the risk of environmental damage. From this assumption, the allowances allocated for free seem, at first sight, to run contrary to environmental principles and aims. Their ratio is inspired by principles outside environmental ones and, first of all, by the aim to prevent a loss of competitiveness in certain production sectors and a possible diminution of economic development and employment. Therefore the measures to coordinate ETS with energy taxation –such as exemptions or tax credits –must be tested in order to identify the most environment-oriented solution.In the last part of the study in fact, the proposal of a tax credit as a method of coordination will be analysed.
Claudia Kettner and Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig
Renewable energy technologies play a decisive role for climate change mitigation and environmental protection but also in the context of energy security and cost competitiveness (e.g., Europe 2020 strategy). So far, renewable energy technologies are generally not cost competitive compared to fossil energy technologies. Therefore, the EU and its member states have introduced policy targets and support schemes for achieving a certain share of renewables in total electricity supply. The support instruments are either price based or quantity based. According to economic theory, the two types of instruments deliver the same result; they are both environmentally effective and economically efficient. However, in the real world, the different instruments may result in different outcomes: price-based instruments provide (higher) certainty regarding the price level, while quantity-based instruments provide (higher) certainty regarding the effective diffusion of renewable energy technologies. Renewable electricity support schemes differ between the European countries. Feed-in tariffs and feed-in premiums are the most relevant support schemes in the European Union; often they are complemented by other instruments such as investment grants, tax exemptions or fiscal incentives. Quota obligations are implemented in five EU member states. Frequently, this instrument is also combined with feed-in tariffs for specific technologies and/or plant sizes. In addition to the instruments chosen, the support level for renewable energies also differs significantly between EU member states. Furthermore, the support schemes have been frequently adapted by member states not only with respect to the support level but also with respect to the predominant policy instrument. This chapter presents an overview of the development renewable electricity support schemes in EU member states. Based on empirical data as well as on the available literature, the schemes are assessed in terms of their environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency and policy recommendations aredeveloped.
Australia’s natural gas endowment has been estimated to be 132 trillion cubic feetas of 2012 and Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas(LNG). Due to the qualities of natural gas products, there has been a recent increase in worldwide demand and this has created pressure to exploit Australia’s natural gas resource. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG)recognizes that a significant transformation is occurring in the gas market and that there is a need for the Australian government to guide gas market development and provide certainty for all stakeholders. The future aimfor Australia’s significant gas resource can be gleaned from the Energy White Paper 2015, which is to increase the supply of gas in order to meet domestic and international gas demand. This chapter questions whether the Australian government’s adoption of the market-based policy and its intention to ‘not pursue national reservation policies or national interest tests’ for natural gas is the best approach to benefit the current and future generations of Australians. This chapter also addresses Australia’s energy security and emissions with regard to transportation fuels as it is currently dependent on imported oil and diesel. In this respect, the Australian government’s Strategic Framework for Alternative Transport Fuels states that from now until 2030, Australia has an opportunity to lay the foundations for a market-based diversification of its transport fuel mix. Despite recognizing this opportunity, the current Australian government policies including taxation policies do not encourage a shift from the use of oil and diesel to the use of natural gas products for Australia’s domestic transportation.
Seck L. Tan
‘It is perfectly possible for a nation to secure sustainable development –in the sense of not depleting its own stock of capital assets – at the cost of procuring unsustainable development in another country’ (Pearceand Warford, 1993). This quote serves to remind us that a nation’s sustainable development achieved at the expense of environmental degradation in another nationis not true sustainable development. This chapter aims to investigate the impacts of trade liberalization on Australia’s ecosystem using a macroeconomic analysis of environmental utilization, and providing policy options available to protect the natural resources in Australia. Such a strategy allows natural resources to realize its full economic potential (whilst being maintained in a closed-loop arrangement) and offers recognition to the ecosystem as an essential player in sustainable trade development. Using an empirical approach, this chapter offers an explanation of the utilization of Australia’s environmental capital and trade (exports and imports) trends with South Korea (FTA partner), as well as contrasting the observed relationship with South Korea. The chapter makes the case that while the expected outcomes from FTA agreement with South Korea will benefit the Australian economy, it is highly recommended that there be initiatives in place to ensure that trade will be just as beneficial to Australia’s environment. Should free trade result in environmental degradation, the anticipated outcomes will not be a true representation of the benefits from free trade. Although the study is based on historical data from 1996 to 2013, it seeks to establish a relationship for Australia’s environmental utilization and trade trends with South Korea and offers a prediction during the FTA tenure.
Jian Wu, Xiao Wang and Zhe Yang
Environmental tax reform is now accelerating in China. Most existing studies on environmental tax policy design focus on national- and regional-level impacts, but it is crucial to understand the impact of different policy designs at the enterprise and industry level, since their choice and behavior change has a fundamental impact. This chapter uses enterprises’ relative efficiency as the proxy for enterprise competitiveness, and estimates the potential change of enterprise competitiveness under different policy scenarios using the DEA-RAM model. By observing these changes and their directions, we are able to work out enterprises’ behavior choices under the policy scenarios.This chapter creates a combination of three scenarios of environmental tax, production and emissions, to analyze the impact of environmental tax on enterprises’ production and emissions behavior. This chapter uses the DEA-RAM model to estimate the change of relative efficiency of enterprises. This model allows us to involve negative output (e.g., emissions), and give more flexibility on the sample size, so it is more applicable to achieve the objectives of this study. The chapter presents the following findings. (1) The current pollution fee policy is inefficient; its poor enforcement weakens the incentive for enterprises to adjust their behavior. (2) Enterprises with different ownership and scales perform with great discrepancy in different industries. (3) Carbon tax demonstrates a strong incentive to stimulate the production behavior change of enterprises while for companies with good potential of fuel substitution emissions tax may stimulate more pollutant reduction. In light of these findings we provide somerecommendations for policy reform.
Reform, Innovation and Renewable Energy
Edited by Natalie P. Stoianoff, Larry Kreiser, Bill Butcher, Janet E. Milne and Hope Ashiabor
This timely book focuses on achieving a sustainable future through the reform of green fiscal policy. Green fiscal policies help not only provide the needed financing but may also serve the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015. In this volume environmental tax experts review the development of fiscal carbon policy, consider the impact of green taxation on trade and competition, analyse the lessons learned from national experiences with fuel and energy pricing, and evaluate a variety of green economic instruments.
The global degree of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere has reached worryinglevels, continuing to rise along a steep upward trend.Stabilizing or even reducing CO2 concentration would require drastic global emissions abatement, considerably above 50 per cent. Such a great reduction, difficult to attain within a reasonable time horizon, would entailhuge costsfordevelopingcountries. Most recent guidelines suggest large-scale integrated approaches, combining measures to both strengthen efforts to reduce emissions and boost carbon sequestration.Among market-based instruments, literature indicates that carbon taxes are one of the most cost-effective for emissions reduction,in particular, upstream (or production-based) CO2 taxation,a tax levied the point of source, as it has low administrative costs and ensures great coverage. If imposed unilaterally,however, this kind of tax could entail significant economic costs, mainly through competitiveness losses, and could become environmentally ineffective due to carbon leakage phenomena.Literature then suggests as a viable alternative, the CAT (carbon-added tax), a downstream, or consumption-based, carbon tax. It has the advantage ofprotecting competitiveness of domestic producers, as it is levied on imports and reimbursed on exports. In this chapter, the implementation of a fuel-added carbon tax (FACT), a duty levied on fossil fuel embodied in goods and services and modelled after value-added tax (VAT), is considered and compared with the tax on fossil fuel purchases (FCT), the simplest and most common upstream carbon tax. In particular, macroeconomic effects of both taxes are estimated for Italy. The chapter also briefly reviews characteristics and implications of production-based carbon taxes; examines downstream taxation and describes the FACT; deals with differences between FCT and FACT both from a theoretical and empirical point of view. In particular, the effects of their implementation in Italy are analysed and compared. A technical appendix on FACT simulation follows the conclusion.
It is now more than 20 years since the first call for action on climate change at the Earth Summit butthe scale of progress to date has been uninspiring. Numerous attempts have been made by the international community to negotiate a cooperative approach to tackling not only climate-related issues but also the funding to achieve these. It has been reiterated again and again that this needs to be viewed as both fair and feasible while consistent with the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities’. The focus has remained solely and consistently on greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbonrelated. Proposals to date have predominantly relied on pledges, that is, voluntary contributions or targets, which are also voluntary. Yet the issue is acknowledged to be broader than this, affecting ecosystems and biodiversity, land use changes and land management activities. Initiatives regarding international payments for ecosystem services are increasingly being adopted. The reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) scheme is an example of an incentivized system but its focus is nevertheless still on reducing emissions. The concept of a ‘global natural resource consumption tax’, which we explore in this chapter, takes a holistic view of the environment and makes all nations accountable for their use of environmental resources.