Environmental tax
However, the revenue earned can also be used to subsidize positive externality generating activities, which is called the “double dividend” of environmental tax.
[8] Opponents, however, argue such taxes increase the cost of daily necessities, which harm the average consumer, especially those under the poverty line.
The broader measures required for this are also sometimes called ecological fiscal reform, especially in Canada,[16] where the government has generally employed this terminology.
In practice, however, setting the correct taxation level or the tax collection system needed to do so is difficult, and may lead to further distortions or unintended consequences.
However, they may simply act as incentives to change habits and make capital investments in newer more efficient vehicles or appliances or to upgrade buildings.
Consumers living sustainable lifestyles in upgraded housing will generally be unwilling to drive around aimlessly shopping, for instance, to save a few dollars on their purchases.
Instead, they'll stay nearer to home and create jobs in grocery delivery and small organic grocers, spending substantially less money on gasoline and car operation costs even if they pay more for food.
In 2004, research by the Policy Studies Institute and Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicated that flat rate taxes on domestic rubbish, energy, water and transport use would have a relatively higher impact on poorer households.
The Balearic Island suffer a high human pressure from tourism, that at the same time provides the main source of income.
This was criticized by the conservative opposition as contrary to business interests, and they abolished the tax in 2003 after seizing back the government.
[21] In a 2006 proposal, the U.K.'s then-Environment Secretary David Miliband had the government in discussions on the use of various green taxes to reduce climate-changing pollution.
[23][24][25] The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, asked Madras School of Economics, Chennai, to undertake a study of taxes on polluting inputs and outputs in 2001.
Raja Chelliah, Paul Appasamy, U.Sankar and Rita Pandey (Academic Foundation, 2007, New Delhi) recommended eco taxes on coal, automobiles, chlorine, phosphate detergents, chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers, lead acid batteries and plastics.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress enacted a set of environmental regulations[26] and taxes in 1979, labelled as the 'Pollutant Discharge Fee' (PDF).
The Pollutant Discharge Fee, has proved to work in some parts of the country such as Northern China, however has shown adverse effects in parts such as the Karst region of Southwest China, as the area has had a boom in industrialisation and urbanisation, which has caused regional water shortage and pollution.
[28] The new tax has also helped battle problems from the Pollutant Discharge Fee, such as local governments exploiting loopholes in the system and sparing big companies from legal trouble.
Before the environmental protection tax was levied, many Chinese companies had to pay pollution discharge fees.
The reason why thermal power plants are criticised for "high pollution" is that the key is backward technology, such as incomplete coal combustion and lack of flue gas treatment equipment.
The power plant has carried out ultra-low emission transformation on all six generating units and added wind and dust suppression nets in the coal yard.
In 2018, the first year of the implementation of the Environmental Protection Tax Law, the pollution equivalents generated by power plants decreased by 73.1% compared with 2017, and the environmental protection tax paid was 2.14 million yuan, which was 73% lower than the pollution discharge fee of 7.96 million yuan paid in 2017.
[30] The French government shared its intentions to establish a new fee on plane tickets with the purpose to fund environment-friendly alternatives, such as eco-friendly transport infrastructure, including rail.
It is based on the "polluter pays" principle, ‘’ according to which all persons must contribute to the repair of the damage they cause to the environment ‘’.
It puts a price on each ton of CO2 emitted to encourage consumers to move away from certain products or behaviors with high greenhouse gas emissions.
[32] It is indexed to the carbon price, which serves as a climate reference for investment choices by public and private economic actors and is expressed in euros per ton of CO2.
Nearly 4 million tons of CO2 were avoided by France in 2018 thanks to its carbon tax, according to an OECD study, which represents a 5% reduction in emissions from the manufacturing sector between 2014 and 2018.
Other debates take place on the transparency of the tax, indeed, although the receipts are estimated at 8 billion euros per year, the citizens do not really know what is done with it, which makes it even more difficult to accept.
