Advertisement

Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 197–227 | Cite as

Fuel Exemptions, Revenue Recycling, Equity and Efficiency: Evaluating Post-Kyoto Policies for Switzerland

  • Jan Imhof
Open Access
Article

Summary

The Swiss CO2 law runs out in 2012, together with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Currently, the Swiss parliament is deciding on the successor of the law that aims to achieve a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020. As a means to achieve this ambitious target, the current tax on stationary fuels at 36 CHF/t CO2 will be maintained, while transportation fuels will still be exempted from the carbon tax. Currently, the tax revenues are fully redistributed as a per-capita lump-sum payment via mandatory health insurance and to the employers proportional to their wage payments. This recycling scheme is likely to be prolonged. However, in the presence of the actual debate on the revision of the CO2 law, this paper reexamines the exemption of transportation fuels and the revenue recycling scheme under two points of view. First, I examine the effects on cost-effectiveness and second, I study their impact on equity. Using a static computable general equilibrium model of the Swiss economy incorporating 14 household groups, I find that tax exemptions increase the economy-wide costs of a carbon tax, yet fail to ease the effect on over-proportionally affected households. However, adjusting CO2 tax rates to correct for pre-existing fuel taxes that do not internalize any external effects may decrease the economy-wide cost of a green tax reform. On the other hand the choice of the recycling scheme has less of an effect on efficiency, but its impact on the distributional outcome of the tax reform has to be considered. Choosing an optimal, economy-wide tax will decrease overall costs considerably, while a lump-sum per-capita rebate will result in a progressive tax package at reasonable costs.

Keywords

Carbon Tax Computable General Equilibrium Double Dividend Tax Exemptions Climate Cent Distributional Consequences 

JEL-Classification

D31 D58 H23 Q48 Q52 Q58 

References

  1. Abrell, Jan (2010), “Regulating co2 Emissions of Transportation in Europe: A CGE Analysis Using Market-Based Instruments”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(4), pp. 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. B., and J. E. Sttglitz (1976), “The Design of Tax Structure: Direct versus Indirect Taxation”, Journal of Public Economics, 6(1–2), pp. 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballard, Charles L. (1999), “How Many Hours Are in a Simulated Day? The Effects of Time Endowment on the Results of Tax-Policy Simulation Models”, Working Paper. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Economics, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  4. Böhringer, C. (2002), Flexible Mechanisms for an Efficient Climate Policy, vol. 11 of ZEW Economic Studies, chap. Shaping Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategies — Policy Issues and Quantitative Insights, pp. 19–30, Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. Böhringer, Christoph, and T. F. Rutherford (1997), “Carbon Taxes with Exemptions in an Open Economy — A General Equilibrium Analysis of the German Tax Initiative”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, pp. 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovenberg, A. L., and R. A. De Mooij (1994), “Environmental Levies and Distortionary taxation”, American Economic Review, 84, pp. 1085–1089.Google Scholar
  7. Bovenberg, A. L., and L. H. Goulder (1996), “Optimal Environmental Taxation in the Presence of Other Taxes: General-Equilibrium Analyses”, American Economic Review, 86, pp. 985–1000.Google Scholar
  8. Boyce, J., M. D. Brenner and M. Riddle (2005), “A Chinese Sky Trust? Distributional Impacts of Carbon Charges and Revenue Recycling in China”, Tech. rep., Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Corong, E. L. (2008), “Tariff Reductions, Carbon Emissions, and Poverty: An Economy-Wide Assessment of the Philippines”, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25(1), pp. 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Office for the Environment (2011), “Emissionen nach CO2-Gesetz und Kyotoprotokoll”, Bern.Google Scholar
  11. Goulder, L. H. (1995), “Environmental Taxation and the ‘Double Dividend’: A Reader’s Guide”, International Tax and Public Finance, 2, pp. 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grainger, Corbett A., and Charles D. Kolstad (2009), “Who Pays a Price on Carbon?”, Working Paper 15239, National Bureau of Economic Research, URL http://www.nber.org/papers/w15239.
  13. Imhof, Jan (2011), “Subsidies, Standards and Energy Efficiency”, The Energy Journal, 0(Special Issue), URL http://ideas.repec.Org/a/aen/journl/32sil-a08.html.
  14. Jacobs, Bas (2011), “From Optimal Tax Theory to applied tax policy. Lessons from the Netherlands for Norway”, in The Research Forum on Taxation ‘Skatteforum’ in Moss, Norway.Google Scholar
  15. Jorgenson, D. W., D. T. Slesnick, and P. J. Wilcoxen (1992), “Carbon Taxes and Economic Welfare”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1992, pp. 393–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Metcalf, G. (2007), “A Proposal for a U.S. Carbon Tax Swap: An Equitable Tax Reform to Address Global Climate Change”, Tech. rep., The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Metcalf, G. E. (1999), “A Distributional Analysis of an Environmental Tax Shift”, National Tax J, 52, pp. 655–681.Google Scholar
  18. Müller, Andr, and Renger van Nieuwkoop (2009), „Volkswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der Schweizer Post-Kyoto-Politik“, Tech. rep., Ecoplan.Google Scholar
  19. Nathani, C., and M. Wickart (2006), “Estimation of a Swiss Input-Output Table from Incomplete and Uncertain Data Sources”, Unpublished Paper, ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Nathani, C., M. Wickart, and R. van Nieuwkoop (2008), “Revision der IOT 2001 und Schätzung einer IOT 2005 für die Schweiz”, Tech. rep., Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE), ETH Zuerich, rueschlikon / Bern / Zürich.Google Scholar
  21. OECD (1995), “Climate Change, Economic Instruments and Income Distribution”, Tech. rep., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Paltsev, Sergey, Henry D. Jacoby, John M. Reilly, Laurent Viguier, and Mustafa Babiker (2005), “Modeling the Transport Sector: The Role of Existing Fuel Taxes in Climate Policy”, Tech. rep., MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.Google Scholar
  23. Poterba, J. M. (1991), “Is the Gasoline Tax Regressive?”, Tax Policy and the Economy, 5.Google Scholar
  24. Sceia, André, Philippe Thalmann, and Marc Vielle (2010), “Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the Revision of the Swiss CO2 Law with a Hybrid Model”, Tech. rep., Research Group on the economics and management of the environment (REME) — EPFL.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, S., and J. Eakins (2004), “Carbon Taxes: Which Households Gain or Lose?”, Envionmental Protection Agency, Ireland.Google Scholar
  26. Van Heerden, J., R. Gerlagh, J. Blignaut, M. Horridge, S. Hess, R. Mabugu, and M. Mabugu (2006), “Searching for Triple Dividends in South Africa: Fighting CO2 Pollution and Poverty while Promoting Growth”, The Energy Journal, 27, pp. 113–141.Google Scholar
  27. Wier, Mette, Katja Birr-Pedersen, Henrik Klinge Jacobsen, and Jacob Klok (2005), “Are CO2 Taxes Regressive? Evidence from the Danish Experience”, Ecological Economics, 52(2), pp. 239–251, URL http://ideas.repec.Org/a/eee/ecolec/v52y2005i2p239-251.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wissema, Wiepke, and Rob Dellink (2007), “Age Assessment of Interactions between Climate Change Policy Instruments and Pre-Existing Taxes: The Case of ireland”, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues.Google Scholar
  29. Yusuf, A. A., and B. Resosudarmo (2007), “On the Distributional Effect of Carbon Tax in Developing Countries: The Case of Indonesia”, Working Paper in Economics and Development Studies 200705.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations