ࡱ> #` tbjbj .f ^^^.$l l l 8 d!7j!!!L"""""6666666$8h:6s*""s*s*6""6---s*""6-s*6--00"! l +0J5L6070,k;+Zk;0k;0P"R/%-&T+(H"""66U-|"""7s*s*s*s*Dd Environment taxes Stig Sollund Director General Tax Law Department Ministry of Finance Norway Introductory presentation on Agenda 2 of IFAD meeting of 51Թ Group of Experts on Domestic Resource Mobilisation A discussion of Enduring and Emerging Issues Rome, 4-5 September 2007 INTRODUCTION The global community is facing immense challenges in dealing with environmental issues. Problems of pollution and ecological degradation are not confined to national states severe as they may be regionally and locally- but they impact on living conditions on the earth as a whole. The urgency of reducing greenhouse gases to curb climate change has been documented by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change and is underlined i.a. by the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, which sums up the situation with the statement that The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. The conclusions of the Stern Review give strong messages on the economic impacts: Climate change could have very serious impacts on growth and development The costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly Actions on climate change is required across all countries, and it need not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries The situation is, however, not yet hopeless if appropriate measures are put in action on the international level: There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now A range of options exist to cut emissions; strong, deliberate policy action is required to motivate their take up Climate change demands an international response, based on shared understanding of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks for actions Imposition of (traditional) taxes to curb emission of greenhouse gases can only play a contributing role in the overall solutions. Other forms of taxation based on market mechanisms like the cap and trading of emission credits under the Kyoto Protocol may be effective and efficient tools in combination with other internationally agreed measures. Environment taxes have certainly a broader field of application than targeting carbon emissions, as will be exemplified in this paper. Such taxes may serve the dual functions of installing incentives and disincentives in order to correct detrimental behaviour whilst being a source of fiscal revenue that can alleviate the tax burdens in other parts of the tax mix, and thereby improve economic efficiency and contribute to economic growth. ENVIRONMENT TAXES, WHAT ARE THEY? When tax is imposed on a polluting or environmentally harmful substance or activity, it introduces an economic cost that the polluter will take into account when making the decision on whether or not to carry on the activity or, how it is done or its extent. This applies whether the activity is part of a production process, consumption, or the way waste is disposed of. Harming the environment can be seen as claiming a service from nature. The producer or consumer should bear the full costs of their various input factors so as to ensure that production and consumption is economically justifiable, and that inherent or ensuing costs are not carried over to others. Introducing a well measured tax implies that the relevant external costs are internalised in the decision process. Environment taxes effectuate the principle that the polluter shall pay. The OECD, IEA and the European Commission have agreed to define environmentally related taxes as any compulsory, unrequited payment to general government levied on tax-bases deemed to be of particular environmental relevance. The relevant tax-bases include energy products, motor vehicles, waste, measured or estimated emissions, natural resources, etc. Taxes are unrequited in the sense that benefits provided by government to taxpayers are not normally in proportion to their payments. Requited compulsory payments to the government that are levied more or less in proportion to services provided (e.g. the amount of wastes collected and treated) can be labelled as fees and charges. The term levy covers both taxes and fees/charges. According to the OECD 2006 Reporta database operated in cooperation between OECD and the European Environment Agency (EEA) has entered 375 environmentally related taxes in OECD member countries, plus some 250 environmentally related fees and charges in those countries. Of the taxes, the largest number is levied on energy products (150), on motor vehicles (125), and various forms of waste (50).There is a wide range of environmentally related taxes currently levied in the OECD-countries, among others: water pollution tax, batteries tax, logging tax, tyres tax, beverage container tax, toxic waste levy, tax on plastic bags, aircraft noise tax, tax on groundwater extraction, tax on pesticides, and artificial fertilisers, landfill tax, ozone depletion tax etc. Environmentally related taxes are, of course, also levied in other parts of the world; in China a tax on wooden chop sticks was increased this year in order to protect forests. According to a news report Chinese consumers use and dispose of 45 billion pairs of wooden chopsticks annually, requiring logging of 25 million trees. Tax revenues raised by countries from environmentally related taxes represent on average about 2-2.5% of GDP in OECD countries, but this figure varies significantly among countries, from more than 3% in Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, Turkey and the Netherlands, to less than 1% in the United States.Also the share of environment tax as per cent of total tax revenue varies significantly, being in the order of 6-7% on average in the OECD countries. This figure is, of course not only resulting from the tax mixes but is also influenced by the level of traditional taxes like income tax and VAT in each country. ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE LEVYING OF ENVIRONMENT TAXES The aim and purpose of environmental taxes is to curb or reduce the extent and amount of the use or consumption of harmful substances or activities, or depletion of a resource. When the imposition of the tax is well targeted, it will add to the costs of the subject paying the tax. The adding of costs to a producer within one country or region, that is not imposed on producers outside that country or region, may of course impact on the competitiveness of the local producer. The result may be that a polluting activity is reduced in geographical areas where environmental standards are higher, and increased or taken over by competitors in places with laxer regulatory regimes. Governments therefore may need to consider a smooth introduction of a new environmental tax over a phasing in period, rather than abruptly imposing tax that dramatically changes the terms of market competition overnight. Other measures may be to exempt certain industries or parts thereof, or to couple the levying of a tax with refund mechanisms or to economically support certain sectors in a transitional period, thus abating the effects of the tax. Such measures to cushion the effects of a tax will tend to reduce its effectiveness, but may be politically necessary in order to introduce the tax in the first place. Also, introducing a general environmental related tax may have distributional effects that raise concerns, in particular where such effects are regressive in the sense that they impact more on consumers with low capability to pay and relatively less on the wealthy part of the population. If, for example, a significant levy is introduced on driving motor vehicles in certain urban areas, the levy may be effective in reducing the total amount of traffic but also have the effect that less wealthy households are prevented from driving children to school while it does not affect the well off. In order to mitigate the overall negative economic distributive effects of certain taxes and levies, Governments may need to consider other changes to the tax system to alleviate the tax burden of low income citizens, e.g. by adjusting the lower tax brackets. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the administrative costs and difficulties. Environmental taxes often can be simple and easy to administer at low costs, but where exemptions and refund mechanisms are applied this may change the picture. A recent example demonstrating how difficult considerations needed to be balanced when a new environment tax was introduced, was the Norwegian tax on nitrogen oxides (NOx) first imposed from 1 January 2007. The introduction of the tax was deemed necessary in order that Norway shall be able to meet the obligations under the Gothenburg Protocol and reduce NOx-emissions by 2010. The main sources of such emissions in Norway are the domestic shipping, petroleum extraction, road transport, the coastal fisheries and certain industries. Although the tax rate at the introduction was at the low level of 15 NOK per kilo, and for practical reasons only energy production by larger engines and plant in sectors representing 55% of the emissions were targeted, it was deemed necessary to couple the tax with significant compensatory payments to support certain affected industries whilst also establishing subsidy arrangement in support of other direct measures to reduce NOx-emissions. COMBINING ENVIRONMENT TAXES WITH OTHER MEASURES AND INSTRUMENTS Imposing tax on an activity or substance, of course, is a measure applied to put limits and constraints to something that can be legally carried on, used or consumed. Certain activities and substances are harmful to such a degree that Governments, either on its own initiative or based on international agreements, outright prohibit or ban the activity. Such prohibition can be put in place more or less smoothly over a phasing in period. One well known success story in this regard is the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer signed in 1987. The treaty stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete the ozone in the stratosphere chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform shall be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). Although the ban has been largely successful it is not 100% effective as it is not yet universally implemented. Where a harmful activity or substance is not generally disallowed, its application can be limited by regulation. Typically legislation may allow the activity only to a certain extent by authorisation or permits. In such cases the imposition of environmentally related taxes can be applied as an effective measure in combination with the regulatory measure. Direct regulation can also be used as a basis for allocation of tradable permits. Where a cap on an activity is imposed and a tradable permit is issued through auction or allocation in consideration for payment, the effect is similar to that of imposing a tax on the activity. The probably best known example of a tradable permits system on the international level is the Kyoto Protocol to the 51Թ Framework Convention on Climate Change. Countries that ratify the protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they exceed the set limitations. The emission reduction obligations run through the period 2008-2012. The Protocol has been ratified by more than 160 countries contributing 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Negotiations will determine the fate of a future treaty to succeed the current one. The European Union has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol in addition to its member states and has established an EU-wide emissions trading system based on allocated emission targets and quotas. Norway has also ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is linking up to the EU-emission trading system through the European Economic Area (EEA)-agreement. To enforce the implementation of the Kyoto obligation Norway has established a trading system under the Climate Quotas Act. Amendments to the act stipulate that to a certain extent allocation emission permits must be paid for. In this regard the system functions akin to a tax. In combination with the emission trading system Norway also imposes CO2-taxes, which means that some industries, notably the petroleum extraction companies, will both have to pay CO2-tax and pay for allocated emission permits. Environment taxes can also be applied in combination with negotiated agreements, subsidies and labelling and certification systems (informing producers and consumers in order for them to make informed choices). Annex The history of green taxes in Norway Norway has a long experience with environmental taxation. Taxes have been introduced to reduce environmentally harmful emissions to air and water, and to reduce the amount of waste generated. Taxation had of course an environmental impact long before taxes was established as an instrument in environmental policy. Already in 1931 Norway introduced a petrol tax. The first tax that had an explicit environmental purpose was levied on sulphur in mineral oil in 1971. However, a wide-spread use of environmental taxes was not seen until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Taxes on mineral fertilisers, pesticides and lubricant oil were introduced in 1988, CO 2 tax on petrol, auto diesel oil, mineral oil and the petroleum sector (only offshore) in 1991, while the sulphur tax on mineral oil was increased substantially. Since the early 1990s tax instruments have played an important role in providing incentives for cleaner production and consumption patterns, even though regulation has remained the main policy instrument to abate environmental damage. Developments the last years have been comparably minor in revenue terms, but important concerning introduction and improvement of taxes with environmentally-friendly incentive effects. The main achievements have been introduction of environment tax on beverage packaging (1994) and tax on final waste disposal (2000), both differentiated according to environmental impacts. A low sulphur tax on coal, coke and refineries was removed by the end of 2001, after only two years in operation. The last years there has also been some reduction of rates (in the CO 2 tax on petrol and offshore petroleum activities, which was brought more in line with rates for other fuels/sectors). In Norway, 4.2 per cent of central government tax revenue is due to environmental and energy taxes, equivalent to 1.6 per cent of GDP (estimates based on the 2006 budget). A main part of this revenue is taxes on energy consumption, not only having an environmental purpose, but nevertheless having a positive impact on the environment. The level of green taxation is one of the highest in the OECD area. Environmental taxes, as discussed in the following, refer to taxes with an explicit environmental purpose (e.g. CO 2 and sulphur taxes). Box 1. Environmental taxes in Norway main developments 1971Sulphur tax on mineral oil1974-1993Tax on non-refillable beverage containers (replaced by broader taxation of beverage packaging)1986-Petrol tax differentiated according to lead content1988-1998Tax on nitrogen and phosphor in mineral fertilisers1998-Tax on pesticides, tax on lubricating oil1990-1991Tax on environment damaging batteries (replaced by regulation)1991-CO 2 tax on petrol, auto diesel oil, mineral oil (excl. fisheries etc.), and petroleum sector (only offshore activities)1992-2002CO 2 tax on coal and coke, except most industrial processes1994-Environment tax on beverage packaging differentiated according to return rate1999-2001Sulphur tax on coal, coke and oil refineries at a low rate (replaced by voluntary agreement)1999-Tax on final waste treatment. CO 2 tax includes domestic sea transport of goods (formerly only passenger transport) and the supply fleet2000-Tax on environment and health damaging chemical products (only two products so far), beverage packaging tax differentiated according to materials, auto diesel oil tax differentiated according to sulphur content, annual weight-based tax on heavy vehicles differentiated according to emission standards (EUROIEUROIII)2003-Taxes on HFCs and PFCsNote: Years fully or partly in operation. Source: Ministry of Finance. Use of environmental taxes has been assessed and evaluated by a number of official commissions. Already in 1977 the Government appointed a preparatory committee to study possibilities of using emission charges and make proposals for environmental taxes, which submitted an official report in 1982 ( NOU 1982: 23 Emission Charges). The committee found limited scope for replacing regulation by taxes, especially as variations in recipients required adjustment of measures to local conditions. According to the committee, taxes could supplement regulations in abating only certain emissions with a more general environmental impact, SO 2 in particular. These views are reflected in the following Government long-term programme, St.meld. nr. 83 (19841985) the Norwegian Long-Term Programme 19861989. The Government could not advocate use of emission charges as a general instrument in environmental policy. However, the Ministry of the Environment would consider possibilities for a more limited use of emission charges. By the end of the 1980s the Governments opinion on the use of environmental taxation had become markedly more positive. In the next long-term programme, St.meld. nr. 4 (19881989) the Norwegian Long-Term Programme 19901993, environmental taxes are seen as a means for improving resource allocation in the economy. The Government envisaged that increased revenue from environmental taxation could be used for reducing other taxes. At the end of 1989 the Government appointed a preparatory committee to prepare a basis for decision-making concerning the use of economic instruments in environmental policy in the 1990s, the Environmental Tax Commission. In its report, NOU 1992: 3 Towards more Cost-effective Environmental policies in the 1990s, the Commission advocated the gradual development of a comprehensive and cost-effective system for pricing of fossil fuel emissions. The Commission noticed that 40 per cent of CO 2 emissions and 60 per cent of SO 2 emissions were exempt from taxation. It also criticised the weak correspondence between the CO 2 tax rate and the carbon content of different fuels. The CO 2 tax should in principle be applied at the same rate for emissions from all fossil fuels and uses. However, costs of restructuring in industries and adaptation in local communities should be considered when introducing and increasing CO 2 taxation. In 1992, as a follow up of the Environmental Tax Commission, the Ministry of the Environment appointed a preparatory committee on environmental policy instruments. Especially the use of administrative regulations is assessed in its report, NOU 1995: 4 Instruments in Environmental Policy. The committee found the concession system of licensing industrial plants (individual emission permits) had worked well in reducing local pollution from industrial emissions. However, the committee advised the environmental authorities to consider possibilities of simplification and increased flexibility of licensing. The committee assessed possible alternatives to the concession system: Environmental taxes, tradable emission quotas, legislation (general rules), voluntary agreements, and environmental quality standards. It advised continued use of the concession system for most local pollution from industrial sources. Concerning regional and global environmental problems, however, the committee recommended the use of general instruments, i.e. economic instruments or general regulation, in preference to individual permits. In 1994 the Storting asked for the establishment of a preparatory committee to assess taxation as an instrument for both improving the environment and increasing employment. The Green Tax Commission was appointed late in the year, and assessed how to change the tax system away from taxation on labour and towards activities that imply increased use of resources and harmful emissions in a long term perspective. In its report, NOU 1996: 9 Green taxes policies for a better environment and high employment the Commission recommends a large number of changes and increases over a broad range of environmental and energy taxes, a main motive being to transfer well established principles of cost-effectiveness into practical policies for a better environment and high employment. The Commission assumed that cost efficiency is a fundamental principle in the formulation of climate policy. This means that policies should be formulated in a cost efficient manner across greenhouse gases (GHGs), sectors and countries. In the case of CO 2 emissions, this means that all products/uses of fossil fuels in principle should bear the same tax per unit emission in all countries. The Commission admitted that it will be difficult in the short run to ensure an optimal policy structure across countries. Norwegian CO 2 taxes should therefore be considered as an element of Norways role as an instigator in the area of climate policy. This complicates the task of formulating a cost efficient structure of CO 2 taxes in Norway. The level of taxation must therefore be determined on a more pragmatic basis, in which the requirements of the instigator role are weighted against the costs for Norway of being the pioneer in this area. The majority of the Commission proposed a low CO 2 tax rate for fuels and sectors that were exempted, while a minority opposed any expansion of the CO 2 tax. Other proposals (by a majority) to be introduced in the short run, were inter alia a low SO 2 tax rate for uses and products that were exempted, harmonisation of fuel taxes and sales taxes on vehicles, peak-load pricing of road tolls, and reduction of government expenditure and subsidies on environmentally harmful activities. Revenue increases should be used to reduce employers social security contributions (pay-roll tax) or for other measures that will ease adjustment and structural problems in the labour market. The Commission also proposed measures requiring further elaboration, including inter alia tax on residual treatment of waste and taxes on substances hazardous to health and environment. In the Proposition no. 54 (19971998) Green Taxes, the Government proposed eliminating nearly all exemptions from CO 2 and SO 2 taxes. However, CO 2 tax on process emissions would be fully compensated based on past emission intensities for each product (i.e. reduced specific emissions would increase relative compensation). Net revenue after the compensation scheme, would be used to reduce employers social security contributions. While the Storting approved a general expansion of the SO 2 tax, the CO 2 tax was extended only to air transport (later withdrawn due to international air transport agreements), domestic sea transport of goods, and the supply fleet in the North Sea, leaving CO 2 emissions from most processing industries and fisheries untaxed as before. The Storting endorsed most other proposals, inter alia tax on waste delivered to landfills or combustion plants, and removing exemptions from fuel taxes. The Storting also required the Government to appoint an official commission to assess a system for domestic GHG emissions trading, taking the Kyoto Protocol as the point of departure. The Parliament emphasised that the system at least should include manufacturing industries that are exempted from CO 2 tax. As a further follow up of the Green Tax Commission, tax on health and environment damaging chemicals were introduced in 2000, so far comprising only trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. The SO 2 tax on coal, coke and refineries was removed in the 2002 budget. The ferroalloys and carbide industries have especially high SO 2 emissions, and subsequently bore most of the tax burden. None of these plants installed scrubbers in the two years the tax existed, but there was some use of less sulphurous coal. A letter of intent between The Ministry of Environment and the Federation of Process Industries (PIL) stipulates further reduction of SO 2 emission in processing industries till 2010. As an adjustment towards more rigid state aid rules determined by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA), the CO 2 tax on coal and coke was abolished from 1 January 2003. Subsequently the CO 2 tax only covers the use of petrol, auto diesel oil and mineral oil (except fisheries), and CO 2 emissions from offshore petroleum activities. On 1 January 2003 taxes on the greenhouse gases HFCs (hydrofluorcarbons) and PFCs (perfluorcarbons) are introduced. The tax rates are around 180 NOK per tonne CO 2 equivalents. In the 2005 budget the Government proposes some tax changes with environmental effects, hereunder abolish the exemption from annual weight-based vehicle tax for buses on licensed routes. This will increase revenue by about NOK 45 million accrued. Expand the environmental differentiation of the annual weight-based vehicle tax for vehicles in excess of 20 tonnes to also include EU emission requirements to be introduced during the course of 2005 and 2008. The change is expected to increase revenue by about NOK 15 million accrued. Emission-free hydrogen cars to be exempted from vehicle registration tax and annual vehicle tax. During the autumn 2005 the Government has also proposed a trading system with allowances of CO2 gas emissions. The system is similar to the European system, but emissions witch are covered by the CO2-tax is exempted. Together with the greenhouse-tax these mechanisms will cover about 70 pct. of Norways total greenhouse gases. The Nordic Council of Ministers has financed a report on green taxes in the Nordic countries, which contains summaries of most studies and evaluations by 1999, see An Evaluation of the Impact of Green Taxes in the Nordic Countries.  HYPERLINK "http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2001-566.pdf" http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2001-566.pdf  IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the 51Թ Environment Programme. A Fourth (comprehensive) Assessment Report (AR4) is announced to be published I Q4 of 2007. Information on the IPCC organisation and work is found on  HYPERLINK "http://www.ipcc.ch" http://www.ipcc.ch.  See  HYPERLINK "http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern-review_economics_climat" http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern-review_economics_climat. See also Green Paper from the European Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Adapting to climate change in Europe Options for EU Action {SEC(2007) 849}, issued on 29 June 2007.  The case for using market based instruments as a supplement to other regulatory measures in order to environment policy objectives is i.a. made in the EU Green Paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes, {SEC(2007)388}, issued on 28 March 2007.  OECD 2006, The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes, ISBN 92-64-02552-9.  See previous footnote.  OECD 2006.   HYPERLINK "http://unfccc.int.resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html. /" http://unfccc.int.resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html. /  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol.     D^_`% 1 2 d   S ŽsjbZZhv,mH sH hymH sH h1t6mH sH jh?{0J6UmH sH h\6mH sH jhaVo0J6UmH sH haVo6mH sH hx6mH sH haVomH sH h\mH sH heAmH sH h~mH sH h1t5mH sH h1th1t5mH sH h1tmH sH h1th1tmH sH  h5 h1t5! 1DX_` $ % 2 * + t l m ?<=gdVMgdv, & Fgdv,nttt;<= TUVwx!"6>PYcmoາ಩vne]hGsmH sH h&6mH sH h=mH sH h/^6mH sH h86mH sH h&mH sH h/^mH sH h8mH sH he 5mH sH h=5mH sH he mH sH hTmH sH hmH sH jh0JUmH sH hLmH sH h,dmH sH hw(mH sH hv,mH sH hVMmH sH !=UVxqrb"c"($)$$$(()(!)^gdGsgdVM0DN5puy D~~rjbjbjZhslmH sH h `mH sH hmH sH h9\h9\6mH sH h9\h9\mH sH h9\6mH sH h9\mH sH jh'0JUmH sH h'mH sH h8mH sH hGsh&mH sH jhal0JUmH sH hal6mH sH halmH sH hGshGs6mH sH hGsmH sH hGs6mH sH #%&CD89>pqr !a"b""Y#_#`###'$($$સxxpph\ShShphh6mH sH hh6mH sH hmH sH hmH sH hmH sH hgmH sH h:q5mH sH hg5mH sH h8mH sH h:qmH sH jh00JUmH sH h QmH sH h06mH sH h0h0mH sH h9\h9\6mH sH h0mH sH h6kmH sH hmH sH h@smH sH  $$%'%b%l%%%''((()(Y(h( )!)")3)))))+,,,,,7-8-`---"/^/ϾϜzrjrah)6mH sH h5mH sH h)mH sH hImH sH h+5mH sH hb5mH sH h2ixmH sH h+mH sH h6mH sH h:6mH sH h:mH sH hG}mH sH hF6mH sH hFmH sH hcmH sH hmH sH hX6mH sH hXmH sH hvxmH sH "!)"),,8-00B2C2X3Y3669999999:3>@Bd8-D9DM ]gdjzhgd|8^gd9gd+^gd:gdVM^/_/000000061L1)2A2B222Y33444566^7999999νzzrzri`ih|85mH sH h5mH sH h|8mH sH h9mH sH himH sH hi6mH sH jhi0J6UmH sH hCu>6mH sH hCu>mH sH h?6mH sH h?mH sH h;n6mH sH h;nmH sH hbmH sH hRmH sH h)mH sH htmH sH ht6mH sH 9:<<a@b@BBBBB/C0C5CPCQC[CCCCCCD4D5D;DeDfDpDDDDDD/E0E:E=EӽӽӽӫӚvvvvvv`v+h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH h}3hjzhCJaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJ"h=CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h}3hjzh5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH %BB0C5CPCQC[CC_vkd$$If0#!0634abd8$If]gd]d8-D9DM ]gdjzhCCCCwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abCCD4Dwwd8$If]gd]vkdP$$If0#!0634ab4D5D;DeDwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abeDfDpDDwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abDDD/Ewwd8$If]gd]vkdH$$If0#!0634ab/E0E:EvEwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634ab=E>EvEwE}EEEE3F4F:F[F\FFFFHHH%H&HIIJJEK`KM!MOOPP1P2PPPPPQQRRWŴŴŴŴŴşqqqqqq+h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH .h}3hjzh6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJh}3hjzhCJaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH +vEwE}EEwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abEEE3Fwwd8$If]gd]vkd@$$If0#!0634ab3F4F:FFwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abFFFHwwd8$If]gd]vkd$$If0#!0634abHHH%Hwwd8$If]gd]vkd8$$If0#!0634ab%H&HmHmLQ-V;Y]K`eeg iiqqqqqqqqqqqqd8-D9DM ]gdjzhvkd$$If0#!0634ab WWWXX:Y:Z;ZK[L[ \ \]]]]]]]]__``````9b:bGbHbcc}cceeeedfefggBhChhhhh묖~~~.h}3hjzh6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH +h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hx6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h}3hx66CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH (h}3hx6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1hiinmvmzn{nnnnnnnnnnn륏vU>:.hh5mH sH hjzh,hK)hjzh0JCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH @jhK)hjzhB* CJOJQJU^JaJmH phIsH 1h}3hjzhB* CJOJQJ^JaJmH phIsH +hjzhB* CJOJQJ^JaJmH phIsH 4jhjzhB* CJOJQJU^JaJmH phIsH (h}3hx6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h}3hjzhCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH (h}3hjzhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH ijGlmnnn3pq ses~ssstttvtwtytzt|t}tttttgd|8gdjzhd8-D9DM ]gdjzhnnnooppp.p/p2p3p4p5p9p:ppppppqqqqqqrr s s ssQsdsַַ{oodXhalh=6mH sH halh=mH sH hh'h=6mH sH hh=mH sH hF8h=mH sH h=6mH sH #jt hK)h=UmH sH h?{h=mH sH hK)h=0JmH sH #j hK)h=UmH sH jh=UmH sH h=mH sH haVoh=mH sH jh=0JU"dsesfs~sssssssssssttt tBtCtDtotptqtstttutwtxtzt{t}t~ttt൭hh5mH sH jh^Uh^jb h=UhK)h=0Jj h=Ujh=U hih=h=jh=0JUhalh=mH sH ",1h. A!"#$% $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 $$If!vh55#v#v:V 0655!/ 34 )DyK -http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2001-566.pdfyK Zhttp://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2001-566.pdfDyK http://www.ipcc.chyK (http://www.ipcc.ch/DyK Lhttp://hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern-review_economics_climatyK http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern-review_economics_climatIDyK 5http://unfccc.int.resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html. /yK jhttp://unfccc.int.resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html. /%DyK ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_ProtocolyK Xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List>@> al Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ alFootnote ReferenceH*6U@6 aVo Hyperlink >*B*ph8,lL %~l 1DX_`  $%2*+tlm?<=U V x qrbc()( ) !!"!$$8%((B*C*X+Y+..11111112368::0;5;P;Q;[;;;;;;<4<5<;<e<f<p<<<</=0=:=v=w=}====3>4>:>>>>@@@%@&@m@mDI-N;QUKX]]_ aabGdefff3hi kek~kksltlvlwlylzl|l}llll00000000000000000 0 0 0000 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@000@000@000@000@00000@2368:0;5;P;Q;[;;;;;;<4<5<;<e<f<p<<<</=0=:=v=w=}====3>4>:>>>>@@@%@&@m@mDI-N;QUKX]]_ aabGdefffek~kksll{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{0%0 @Y0`H{00{0(0 @Y0`H{00{0+0 @Y0`H{00{0.0 @Y0`H{00{010 @Y0`H{00{040 @Y0`H{00{070  @Y0`H{00{0:0  @Y0`H{00{0=0  @Y0`H{00{0@0  @Y0`H{00{0C0  @Y0`H{00{0F0  @Y0`H{00{0I0  @Y0`H{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00 @Y0`h{00 @0@{00|O{00{00@0 00 $^/9=EWhndst;>=!)BCC4D/3F%it<?CFGHIJKLNOPQRSVt=zffflX4GR!\XXXX8@0(  B S  ?*֏@2׏@;؏@ُ@:>>>@@fffek}k~kktltlvlvlwlwlylzl|l}llllfg/hkllpltltlvlvlwlwlylzl|l}llll"= T)?)^)`?OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH"=9 wowzk$)]  ,= A Z h'`t7l|kR' <rI07=6! $C %r(e)FE)+d)H *++v,0^.0!02 3^"4}F4'=667j7|8D8F89B>)Q>uo>Cu>k?@tCRDE+EGE BG `G-L*M Q{1Q /RF-T9T VV~VmgW Y [+\U]/^k8^I!_D_ `acde&IeueefjzhibBi:lal;noaVotowo p:q!s@sGstev+v9wK_wiw2ixvxy?{|fH|W|G}]~GA~b6DeA ?e ,d{6keU:LQVMW}-s"#./E7 ?S| DSYQwp^R*Nwb:W2}T?slpmXEM\~3x^_bx&Q$Q !' 0w(5K2QV\0A:(MPR 9\FA/]\8d1~)> FL gsez S 87fFFxVp+Ic8QXee &`R~|2F0x6lSw*^/,=#y81t;A9D0;5;P;Q;[;;;;;;<4<5<;<e<f<p<<<</=0=:=v=w=}====3>4>:>>>>@@@%@&@l@::dAG ::lp@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1ςFț7 [W4[W4!4dff2QHX ?1t2Environment taxes Stig SollundMichael.Lennard Oh+'0  $0 P \ h tEnvironment taxesStig Sollund Normal.dotMichael.Lennard4Microsoft Office Word@@j]\@2Q@(][W՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  Finansdepartementet4f Environment taxes Title Px _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_NewReviewCycle_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceAM-http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2001-566.pdfk ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol5http://unfccc.int.resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html. /{Lhttp://hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern-review_economics_climat ghttp://www.ipcc.ch/g\51Թ Group of Experts Meeting on Tax Aspects of Domestic Resource MobilisationStig.Sollund@fin.dep.noSollund, Stig  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY[\]^_`acdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FData Z1Tableb{;WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q