In this UN publication You have these data regarding different types of taxes that belong to GREEN category, see page 28...

http://books.google.rs/books?id=fVA0Gmp4ra0C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Environmental++taxes+in+serbia&source=bl&ots=dNKHDBAEDg&sig=VgRwrkcAdT-ppdGELIhjq8b95gw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j4GhU8_SMOLNygOB9oGQBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Environmental%20%20taxes%20in%20serbia&f=false

Dear Dony

There are many forms in which to make people follow green policies. Direct taxes on emissions is the least costly way and generally is more efficient. This may be suitable for electric generation systems. But that is always not sufficient. Pollution is not caused when the product is made. That is why we need to take the total life cycle approach. That is where there must be some indirect approaches to taxing. For example the emission standards for cars is one good example. Incentives for not driving cars by providing cheaper and better alternatives for mass transport. Another form is subsidies like changing over to renewable sources of energy and material.

I like the idea of "green tax". I think such tax can be an incentive to reduce pollution in my country and also to create awareness about pollution.

In principle yes. This looks attractive as an idea, however, implementation might not be as easy, the issue is loaded with details and uncertainties, and requires international cooperation. Moreover, In the realm of money and economics taxes and penalties might also stand as a legislation for pollution.

As a start, environmental education must penetrate school curricula world wide to create positive awareness.

Well, in my country, as in fact in many other countries, we are currently facing a terrible problem: open extractive mining. The damage to the environment is awful and it may take decades for nature to recover, according to a number of studies.

The government over here does not know anything about green tax. The initiative was brought up by a congressman but the government ignored the initiative.

Green tax is necessary, no doubt about it. However, a political as well as a social action should also be undertaken. The big international mining corporations simply care for revenues and incomes, and not for the environment, apparently.

Dear Nageswara,

Thank you and yes both direct and indirect taxes would be most important. Of course, using public transport and green energy would reduce carbon footprints

Dear Asmat,

Thank you for agreeing that “green taxes” would help to reduce pollution in Pakistan!

Dear Kamal,

Yes, implementation of new policies (“Green taxes” in this case) could help reduce pollution in any country!

Dear Talal,

Yes awareness and education about the merits of ‘green taxes” would be vital at all levels including primary and secondary schools

Dear Carlos,

It looks that you have significant mining in Colombia. Both mining and mineral exploration can cause significant impact on the environment via generation of hazardous wastes and contaminating air, soil, water, plants and food with sulfate, metals and metalloids, radioactive substances, fly ash, mining processed chemicals etc

.

Unfortunately, while Australia did introduce a carbon tax, there has been a change of government, there is a bill before parliament to repeal the carbon tax (the carbon tax referred to by the current government as a "toxic tax"). The advantage of such a tax is clear, but unfortunately, such things tend to be unpopular with business as well as a significant part of the public. Interestingly our prime minister recently referred to the increase in the petrol excise as a carbon price signal in discussions with President Obama - a comment that will likely haunt him in the future!

There are two mechanisms for encouraging a shift in activities to less environmentally damaging ones. One is through the introduction of taxes (stick), the other is through subsidies (carrot). The problem with subsidies is that these are a drain on the countries budget. Subsidy programs existed in Australia well before the carbon tax was introduced, encouraging households to install solar power systems, rainwater harvesting and greywater systems etc. Particularly the solar system incentives have lead to an increase in the cost of power - i.e. resulted in an indirect tax, though without money the money going to the government.

It shames me to admit that Australia has taken a significant backward step in this area. Instead of focusing on ways to reduce our individual tax burden by reducing our carbon footprint, the focus has been on the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living, and a reluctance to take a lead globally in this (we continually hear the cry "why should we pay the tax when other countries are not").

The tax was also designed with significant areas of the economy exempt from the tax - not the way to go. Everyone should pay such a tax. Further, in my view the tax should be expanded to include all adverse impacts on the environment. Unfortunately, care for the environment doesn't appear to be that important for many people in this great nation. We like having a nice environment to live in, but many are not interested in doing anything that will cost money to ensure the protection of that environment.

Did we ever enquired how these taxes collected are utilized are they really utilized to subsidize the greener technology or merely used as revenue?

Dear Barry,

Thank you for your elaborate discussion in this topic

I do know that current government is against the Carbon tax that was introduced by previous government with the support of green. Yes it is an unfortunate situation and hope the C tax remains intact for the sake of environmental sustainability. When some developing nations like Bangladesh and India are introducing “ green taxes”, Australia should not take a back ward steps in this area!

Dear Saif,

I donot know taxes are/were collected but donot know whether they have been utilized for greener technology. By the way do you have any sort of “green taxes” in Kuwait?

Green tax (or environmental tax) are taxes imposed on environmental pollutants or on goods whose repeated use contributes to pollution. It is a novel idea to enforce or introduce taxes on substances, which pollute the environment, the ultimate aim being the substantial reduction of pollution. In a country like India, green taxes shall have a deterrent effect, sensitizing the denizens about pollution control and management. This paper will discussed issue Whether the imposition of green taxes shall assist in the reduction of pollution.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2049504

No Golam certainy not we dont have any sort of tax what so ever in Kuwait including tax free income. But, I dont think most of the countries which collect that green tax spend it on subsiding the greener technologies. What the airline do do they pay some sort of tax? they calculate CO2 produced per trip are they liable to any payment. And is thsi payment utilized to mitigate the GHG effect.

Dear Lala,

I had a quick read of the paper that you emailed, which suggested we should consider environment as a public good. When a tax is imposed on a polluting or environmentally harmful substance or activity, it generally helps to reduce such harmful substance since polluter will make a decision on whether or not to carry the activity that will cause pollution. Further, introduction of a “green tax” may cause change in behaviour towards the environment!

Dear @Golam, "Environmental Taxation as a Tool for Sustainable Development ..." is good resource for your thread, regarding my country.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/ibg/eajour/v45y2012i1-2p32-44.html

In this UN publication You have these data regarding different types of taxes that belong to GREEN category, see page 28...

http://books.google.rs/books?id=fVA0Gmp4ra0C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Environmental++taxes+in+serbia&source=bl&ots=dNKHDBAEDg&sig=VgRwrkcAdT-ppdGELIhjq8b95gw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j4GhU8_SMOLNygOB9oGQBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Environmental%20%20taxes%20in%20serbia&f=false

Dear Ljubmoir,

many thanks for the two links related to this topic. I will read out both the papers at a suitable time (2-3 days time) and make a summary for all

Ljubmoir thanks for sharing these papers.

You are welcome my dear @Golam and @Saif! I try to give my best!

Dear Ljubomir et al.

A short review highlighting the key points of the paper “Environmental Taxation as a Tool for Sustainable Development Policy-State Comparison of Serbia and Application of Ecological Taxation Reform in European Union Munitlak Ivanović, O., et al., Environmental Taxation, EA (2012, Vol. 45, No, 1-2, 32-44)

Ecological/Environmental/ eco taxes can be imposed on goods which will have an impact on environment in particular on scarce natural resources. Ecological taxes can help reduce pressure on environment by encouraging industrial producers to develop/implement more efficient technologies or to produce goods which are ecological friendly. As a result such taxes support an environmentally sustainable development via doing less harm to the environment.

In EU, ecological taxes are collected as energy taxes, pollution taxes, resource taxes and transport taxes, whereas in the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia), ecological taxes collected as taxes on plastic containers, import of motor vehicles, carbon tax, fossil fuel tax, CO2 emission tax, CFC tax, eco taxes on special waste flow and new automobile; gasoline and diesel tax; and environmental compensations (for harmful industrial waste disposal; packaging materials and packaging waste, CO2 emission, waste motor oils) etc.

Among the Balkan countries, Croatia has made much progress in collecting and enforcement of tax reforms. The Republic of Serbia introduced some environmental taxes (eco-taxes on special waste flow, using motor vehicles, new automobiles). Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro, have not made much progress in environmental taxation compared to Serbia.

It is important to note that ecological taxation to be imposed to a country should be efficient in terms of ecology (to achieve goals of environment protection at the least price), efficient in terms of economy (to interfere as least as possible in resources allocation in the market), simple in terms of taxation and administration, be cheap taxation and be neutral in comparison to competition terms and free trade.

Very interesting question and thread, indeed.

I would like to add two aspects: The wave of ecological tax reforms in the mid/end of 1990s in Europe (e.g. Denmark, Germany) entailed the use of the revenues for incentivising employment or reducing the cost of labour (e.g. reducing income tax or contributions to social security schemes). Thereby, a double dividend was created: providing incentives to reduce emissions /resource use while reducing costs of labour and increasing employment.

The other aspect I would like to highlight are the difficulties for a border tax adjustment: From the point of view of the environment, taxation of emissions would be most preferable. However, if secondary energy (electricity) is imported, a border tax adjustment is not possible in the current framwork of international trade law. Hence the taxation of fuels instead of emissions is preferred to avoid problems of loss of competitiveness, although this is second best from the point of view of the environment.

regards

Klaus

Dear Klaus,

Thank you for your inputs. Yes tax revenues from environmental or green taxes can be used to cut other taxes

A point I do not think has yet been made is the relationship between the green taxes and other forms of taxation. Adding a 8000€ emissions tax to a vehicle that costs 20000€ may well be expected to have an effect on consumers' choices, impulsing them towards more efficient options. The effect of the same tax on a 120000€ vehicle will probably be next to nil since the same vehicle will already have attracted a much larger sales tax in most European countries. I am thinking of a typical family car in the first place, and a commercial vehicle in the second. Perhaps we need to distinguish between forms of taxation aimed at the individual and those aimed at businesses and industrial applications.

Best regards,

-Alan

Alan you are perfectly right. The taxation on vehicle should be related to their actual emission. I guess they can put a tax on gasoline which can go towards emission reduction those big gas grazers will take more fuel and indeed pay more instead of the direct tax.

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your inputs. I have one inquiry on taxation between family and commercial vehicles; will the taxation of vehicles (private or commercial) should also be differed based on (a) age of the vehicles (old or new) (b) environmental performance (CNG, petrol-CNG, petrol-electrical, electrical, petrol, diesel)?

Yes South Africa has similar taxes, but also a tax incentive scheme to be implemented in 2015, where tax deductions can be made for energy savings/ carbon footprint reduction, referred to as SARS Section 12L tax incentive.

These taxes and incentives might be positive but will it really reduce the carbon footprint or it is merely taxation.

Dear FC Prinsloo

Thank you for informing that South Africa is going to implement green taxes as well green tax incentive scheme in 2015. I understand that South Africa is the first African nation and 2nd BRICS nation to introduce a carbon tax aimed at reducing the emission of gases related to climate change (@ R120/ ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent with an increase at 10% a year during the first phase of implementation, from 2015-2020). In addition, I feel that community awareness and education would be vital, for example on energy and water savings, energy and water efficiency, renewable energy, pollution etc

Golam Thanks for the information and initiating the question. But are we providing a level plain field. The biggest emmiters are establishing the Carbon trade, even in this US is not participating. reduction in emission in developing countries often can compromise their pace of development, any thoughts on this.

Hm, in Greece, the emissions rights for Public Electricity Company just increased the electricity bills and dιd not reduce pollution from lignite...

I guess this is not a Greece problem but in most countries even more in developing third world.

Key points on the growth of “tax”- green tax incentives and penalties: Australia

1. Energy efficiency: Australian government invested (a) A$800 million (US$ 837 million) in clean technology investment programme (grants to encourage manufactures to invest in energy efficient equipment and low emissions processes and product); (b) AU$ 200 million (US$210 million) energy efficiency grants programmes specific to the food and foundry industries; (c) AU$ 70 million (US$ 73 million) to help coal mining industry implement energy saving and carbon abatement technologies;

2. Carbon tax (passed on November 2011; commenced on July 2012): Australia’s carbon price @ AU$23 (US$24) per ton, rising by 2.5 percent per year until 30 June 2015;

3. Carbon sequestration (passed in August 2011): Australia has introduced Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) to encourage farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing GHG emissions on the land;

4. Green innovation: Australia has a number of major programs and initiatives including the AU$ 3.2 billion (US$3.3 billion) ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) initiative to promote innovation in renewable energy; AU$ 300 million (US$ 311million) to help the steel industry become efficient and economically sustainable in a low- carbon economy; and the AU$ 200 million (US$ 208 million) Clean Technology Innovation Programmes;

5. Green vehicles (commenced July 2012): Australia has introduced an LPG (Liquefied petroleum gas or liquid petroleum gas) vehicle Scheme aimed to increase the use of LPG as a transport fuel. Grants are provided for conversion of registered vehicles to LPG (AU$ 1,000) (US$ 915) or the purchase of new LPG vehicles (AU$ 2,000) (US$ 1830). Grants are capped to 25,000 eligible claims per financial year;

6. Water efficiency: There is a financial incentive to minimize carbon emissions from wastwater through recycling and treatment; grant funding (AU$ 450 million (US$ 470 million) to influence behaviour in the water sector for the On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Programmes; most importantly Australian Government committed AU$ 3.1 billion (US$ 3.23 billion) to the “Restoring the Balance “in the Murray-Darling Basin programmes to purchase water for the environment (commonwealth environmental water).This environmental water has been/is being recovered through water saving infrastructure upgrades, water purchases (direct buybacks of water entitlements from irrigators) and other water recovery programmes in order to protect or restore the environmental assets of the Murray Darling basin;

7. Material resource efficiency & waste management: Australian government is encouraging to reduce the environmental impacts of consumer packaging via improvements in packaging design, higher recycling rates and better stewardship of packaging. Grants are available to industry to focus on initiatives related to glass, plastics and recycling programs. Over AU$ 6.1 million (US$6.3 million) in funding has been provided to 40 new projects in the 2012-2013 fiscal year

(summary is based on The KPMG Green Tax Index 2013: An exploration of green tax incentives and penalties)

Frank Veroustraete, University of Antwerp, Belgium sent an answer direct to me, the summary of which are follows:

1.Tax on domestic wastes: in the City of Antwerp , Belgium, one has to buy the different types of waste bags from warehouses to separate paper, glass, organics etc, therefore the more bags one in need, they will have to pay more for the bags (which is a tax). Anyone not following these principles (not properly separating wastes) will be fined (which also incur additional tax for the government)

2.Tax on waste water: Each resident of the city (Antwerp) has a drinking water counter, which registers the amount of drinking water consumed on a yearly basis. Based on this drinking water consumption, the city assumes that a percentage of this drinking water ends up as waste water in the sewer system. Based on one’s drinking water consumption, s/he is taxed with a fixed percentage. The tax money is used to purify the sewer waste water, so that it can be cleanly disposed off in the river. One important note: since this system has been implemented, there has been a behavioural change within communities, for example a lot of inhabitants of the city now collect rainwater and store it to be used for washing clothes, flushing toilets, irrigating gardens or small food plots etc. Therefore those residents using rain water are not only saving precious resource like drinking water but also paying less tax, thus saving water bills as well- a win win situation for all!

Frank Thanks for sharing the information. I guess waste seggeregation is implemented in several countries and this leads to efficient waste management and recycling. Unfortunately these are completely ignored in third world, although lots of recycling takes place there.

Waste water tax is also a common thing across several countries. But why only drinking water is metered? it is domestic water supply that is metered or drinking only? and this wastewater from drinking will essentially be sanitary waste water and may not require same treatment as that of detergents and chemicals.

Saif,

It is drinking water (tap) Frank is refereeing to since the same water is also used for toilet flushing and washing of clothes

Some inquiries Saif

What do you mean by domestic water?. Do you have separate meters in Kuwait or one?

Golam usually most homes in Kuwait have two type of water one is the desalinated water that is for domestic household uses (including drinking water), this is metered and is to be paid. The other is brakishwater that is usually used for cleaning/washing house, cars that is free.

Saif Thank you

Dear Prithvi,

Thanks for your inputs

Awareness and education of communities will be important to take care of the environment, this may be happening at small or large scale depending on countries; but this alone may not be sufficient and behavioral changes may not happen without any sort of enforcement of laws.

For example, in Belgium one has to buy different types of waste bags (as a tax) from warehouses to separate paper, glass, organics etc, this may be a very small tax but this helps motive people to make less waste. Other examples, if there is free water (e.g. tap water for drinking, bathing, cooking) or free energy (e.g. gas for cooking, heating) available for public, people will most likely will make a waste but when they have to pay some fees for these services, it will automatically encourage them to reduce a waste. Such behavioural changes will not only help to save energy (less greenhouse gas emissions) but also helps to save their water and gas bills.

Nevertheless, Green taxes” such as ‘Carbon tax’ are generally target big polluters (industries) and levies for vehicles target rich people not poor people, and many people in poor countries cannot afford cars!

I understand the Government of India is serious about pollution as demonstrated by new initiatives of using green energy/renewable energy to run rail trains

Unfortunately, green policy lead to a loss of competitiveness of Europe and lead to massive unemployment that nobody wants to talk about.

Dear Prithvi,

I donot know how many jobs will lose as a consequence of ‘green taxes” in India (perhaps you have the statistics about this?) but green taxes are also stimulus to create new jobs in the sectors like, clean energy/renewable energy, innovation and development and rural development via solar and wind power. In rural areas there may not have electric grid to supply electricity, however solar energy can fulfil such gap, also solar power /wind power can create rural jobs.

Further ‘green taxes” are aimed for creating a good environment for living such as livable city, a healthy environment for all including biodiversity, less water pollution and less food contamination. Are they not good for the current and future generations?

According to latest WHO report released on 7 May 2014, thirteen of the dirtiest/most air polluted cities (out of 20 polluted cities) identified by WHO were actually located in India (with New Delhi, Patna, Gwalior and Raipur in the top four spots.) Other cities with high air pollution were in Pakistan and Bangladesh (based on particulate matter (PM) or PM2.5 (diameter of 2.5 or less). In contrast, cities with the lowest level of pollution were found in developed countries (Canada, the United States, Finland, Iceland and Sweden). Particulates matter refers to ammonia, carbon, nitrates and sulfate- which are small enough to pass into the bloodstream and cause diseases such as emphysema (a condition in which the air sacs of the lungs are damaged and enlarged, causing breathlessness) and cancer.

In fact, high concentrations of small and fine particulate matter pollutants are particularly associated with high numbers of human death from heart disease and stroke, as well as respiratory illnesses and cancer. Therefore more actions and measures are required for developing countries to reduce pollution in order to safe guard human and environmental health as in an unhealthy environment, people may perform their jobs unsatisfactorily and often may ask for short or long term sick leaves which could be costly for the employers!

Regarding previous discussions on green taxation vs social problems that may arise, I find this contribution as good, analytical one!

http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/marketfail/environmental_taxation.htm

Dear Ljubomir,

Thanks for the links, I agree with one of the main conclusions that if green taxes are balanced by reducing other taxes through ‘revenue recycling’, research suggests that green taxes could result in an overall economic improvement!

Dear Golam,

We carried out an analysis using an energy optimisation model at country level (Spain) considering taxes on pollutants and ceilings derived from European policies. This could be helpful:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273528899_Evolution_of_NOx_and_SO2_emissions_in_Spain_ceilings_versus_taxes

Regards

Article Evolution of NOx and SO2 emissions in Spain: Ceilings versus taxes

Dear Golam and friends, I am so late in the discussion, but I would like to bring a different angle to the same issues:

As you may know in 2012 RIO +20(UNCSD) there was formal paradigm shift from the tradional market thinkin of Adam Smith to the green markets/green growth based markets.  In the traditional markets, enviromental issues are externality issues, and therefore they should be dealt with as externaliites.  In green markets environmental issues are now endogenous issues and therefore they should be dealt with as internalities.....

The problem is, the paradigm shfited creating a green market knowledge gap as there is no theory yet of "the perfect green market", there is no green economics and there is no green macroecomics so we do not have the proper tools to deal with green markets, which explains why developed and developing countries and UN and the other global institutions  alike are having difficulties setting up green markets....

Under perfect green markets environmentally friendly consumers and producers would be responsive to green taxes as they are now endogenous issues...

I am sharing here four documents that I am sure you and the other participants may find interesting as food for thoughts on how to internalize environmental issues and social issues in the price structure of markets: A good day to all.

The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointing Out the Structure of the Old Agricultural Development Model After Internalizing Environmental Externalities.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244857_The_Past_Versus_the_Present_in_Development_Thinking_Pointing_Out_the_Structure_of_the_Old_Agricultural_Development_Model_After_Internalizing_Environmental_Externalities

The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towards Agricultural Sustainability

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244871_The_Present_Versus_the_Future_in_Development_Thinking_Towards_Agricultural_Sustainability

What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244562_What_If_Markets_Have_Always_Been_Distorted_Would_It_Then_Be_a_Good_Fix_to_Add_Fair_Trade_Margins_to_Correct_Distorted_Agricultural_Market_Prices

Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281277199_Complex_and_Man-made_Markets_Are_We_Currently_Approaching_Sustainability_in_a_Backward_and_More_Chaotic_Way_in_Terms_of_Economic_Thinking

Article The Past Versus the Present in Development Thinking: Pointin...

Article The Present Versus the Future in Development Thinking: Towar...

Article What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be...

Article Complex and Man-made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching S...

Dear Golam,

Here you'll find a work we did on taxes as regulatory instruments for reducing NOx and SO2 in Spain within a techno-economic optimisation energy systems model:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-015-0923-z 

Best regards

Diego

THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES IN SERBIAN TAX SYSTEM!

The aim of this paper is to point out the lack of giving importance to ecological taxes and the low participation of dedicated revenues in the structure of these taxes in the tax system of the Republic of Serbia. Environmental taxes have gained in importance, especially through the ecological tax reform in a number of European countries, which have proved to be significantly more effective compared to other available instruments in the struggle against environmental problems. The premise of this paper is that the inadequate structure of environmental taxes has a negative impact on allocations in the field of environmental protection. This hypothesis will be tested by using statistical methods and comparative analysis...

http://www.ekonomika.org.rs/en/PDF/ekonomika/2016/clanci16-4/7.pdf

Thank you all for you inputs including weblinks  of relevant publications 

Hi,

Can anyone suggest me the way green tax has to be imposed? is it a central policy i.e. taxing at source of import or should be paid by end user??

http://rachel.org/files/document/Green_Taxes.pdf