MARCO CONCEPTUAL.

94 GREEN AND BEAR IT

(dis)trust in government; and finally, ceiling on politically viable increases in taxes on transport fuels likely to have been reached.

Some of these are merely plausible hypotheses, for which limited or no evidence was adduced, while in other cases, there is some research to support the case made. The logic of being inclusive is that it provides a template on which further research can be undertaken, validating or otherwise the propositions made, and then deleting or adding variables as the evidence calls for.

Table 5.5: Current Situation and Prospects Relating to Hypothesised Indicators Affecting the Mobilisation of Markets to Protect the Environment, Ireland, 2001

Hypothesised Indicator Current situation

2001

Prospects 2002-2005

Author’s Comment

Governments don’t need the money 0 3 As the economy slows down, the

government may find it expedient to identify new sources of Exchequer funding. Neutral or Antagonistic Role of

Department Finance and Treasury.

0 ? Political engagement in a future

government, e.g. by the Greens could change things.

Need for tax reform, and specifically, perceived need for reduction in taxation on labour.

0 7 Tax reform will come back on the agenda if

Exchequer revenues fall below expectations.

Perception of Environmental

effectiveness is positive but can be made to appear ambiguous.

3 5 Those in the policy system today agree

that market based policies could improve environmental performance.

Populist culture against “charges” and its political saliency.

0 0 No sign of real change. The PR system will

ensure that there is a political voice there against “double taxation”.

Political Geography – the saliency of public environmental sentiment and “the Greens”.

0 2 Likely to depend on whether the arithmetic

after the next election favours government participation by the Greens.

Absence of Economics and Economists in public administration.

0 3 Recent hiring of an environmental

economist to support the climate change strategy.

Lack of effective “Champions”. 0 ? Could emerge.

Emphasis on Investment as the main policy instrument.

0 5 As Structural and Cohesion Funds

diminish in absolute amounts, there is l kely to be more attention devoted to other approaches to public policy.

Lack of Environmental Economics Research.

1 5 The EPA, the Irish Energy Centre, and

perhaps others will start funding serious research.

Emissions Trading – with free

allocation – substitutes for taxation and charges where the latter is politically impossible.

1 3 If Kyoto excluding the US is agreed, then

emissions trading is likely to emerge as an important policy instrument.

Inflationary pressures, and need for compliance with the Maastricht criteria.

0 5 A slowing economy is likely to abate the

inflationary pressures.

Degree of fossil fuel dependency. 2 4 Nuclear option will remain moribund, but

wind power will expand. The Emergence of an

industry/business lobby in favour of green policies generally, including environmental taxation.

0 1 Wind lobby may begin to make its views

heard.

Degree of (dis)trust in government. 0 0 Nothing likely to reduce this in the medium

term. Ceiling on Politically viable increases

in Taxes on Transport Fuels likely to have been reached.

0 2 Some more action possible, but only in the

ACCEPTABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS 95

Weightings: 0 = no positive contribution to introduction of market-based instruments,

10 = outstanding contribution

It also provides a framework for examining whether a particular jurisdiction is likely to embrace environmental taxation in the future. To illustrate this potential, the situation and prospects in Ireland are summarised in Table 5.5, where 0 = no positive contribution to introduction of market based instruments; 10 = outstanding contribution to introduction of such instruments in environmental policy. These weightings are of course highly subjective, but in the “Comment” column I provide a justification for my determination.

It can be seen in Table 5.5 that, in my judgement, the preponderance of the factors in Ireland at present (2001) is acting to inhibit the mobilisation of market forces in support of environmental policy. However, there are prospects for some (modest) improvement in this regard over the 2002-2005 period.

There is an implication in this analysis for those who would like to actively promote the use of market based instruments generally, and environmental taxation in particular. Unless some of the contextual conditions become favourable, it is likely to be a waste of time and other resources to allocate much effort to achieve something that is not in effect feasible. Conversely, when the pre-conditions do move in a favourable direction, then such effort is likely to yield dividends.

REFERENCES

BARKER, T., and J. KÖHLER, (eds.), 1998. International Competitiveness and Environmental Policy, International Studies in Environmental Policy Making, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

BARKER, T., and N. JOHNSTONE, 1999. “International competitiveness and carbon taxation” in J. Van den Bergh, Handbook of Economics Environmental and Resource Economics, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar

BOVENBERG, A.L. and R.A. De MOOIJ, 1994. “Environmental levies and distortionary taxation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 94, pp. 1085-1089.

BOYLE, G., 2000. The competitiveness and environmental impact of energy taxation on Irish industry, with Farrell Grant Sparks, report for IBEC.

BRÄNNLUND, R., L. HETEMÄKI, B. KRISTRÖM, and E. ROMSTAD, 1996. Economics and the Environment – Beyond the Textbook Cases, summary report from the NERP project “Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: the Nordic Forest Sector.” Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.

CARPENTER, C., 1994. The Guinness European Data Book – Facts, Figures, Issues, Middlesex: Guinness Publishing Ltd.

CONVERY, F. and E. McMAHON, 2001. “European Tatemae – Rhetoric and reality in Climate Change policy”Keynote Speech (Environment), International Forum of the Collaborative Projects, Tokyo, March 18, 2001.

CONVERY, F. J. and R. KATZ, 2002. Air Emissions Trading in Chile (Santiago Metropolitan Region) Case Study in the Design and Use of Market Based Instruments for Environmental Policy, Washington DC: World Bank (forthcoming).

96 GREEN AND BEAR IT

DANISH EPA, 2000. Economic Instruments in Environmental Protection in Denmark, Copenhagen. DANISH GOVERNMENT, 1999. Evaluation of Green Taxes and Trade Industry, Copenhagen. DANISH MINISTRY OF TAXATION, 1998. Energy Taxes: the Danish Model, Copenhagen.

De MOOIJ, R. A., 1999. “The Double Dividend of an Environmental Tax Reform,” in: Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 293-306.

EEA, 2000. Environmental Taxes: recent developments in tools for integration, Copenhagen.

ENEVOLDSEN, M., 2000. “Industrial Energy Efficiency” in A.P. Mol, V. Lauber and J.D.Liefferink (eds.), The Voluntary Approach to Environmental Policy: Joint Environmental Approach to Policy Making in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 62-103.

GOODWIN, P.B., 1992. “A Review of Demand Elasticities with Special Reference to Short and Long Run Effects of Price Changes”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, pp. 155-169.

GOULDER, L. H., 1995. “Effects of carbon taxes in an economy with prior tax distortions: an inter- temporal general equilibrium analysis”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, November, pp. 271-297.

JAFFE, A.B., S.R. PETERSEN, P.R. PORTNOY and R. N. STAVINS, 1995. “Environmental regulations and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 132-163.

NEI, 1991. Price Elasticity of Energy Use in Road Traffic, Netherlands Economics Institute, Rotterdam (in Dutch).

NORDHAUS, W.D., 1993. “Optimal Greenhouse Gas Reductions and tax policy in the ‘DICE’ Model,” American Economic Review, (Papers and Proceedings), Vol. 83, No. 2, May, pp. 313-317.

OECD, 1992. Technology and the Economy: the Key Relationships, Paris: OECD. OECD, 1999. Database on Environmentally Related Taxes

http://www.oecd.org/env/policies/taxes/index.htm.

PARRY, I.W.H., 1995. “Pollution taxes and revenue recycling,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, pp. 64-77.

PORTER, M.E., 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.

PORTER, M. and C. VAN DER LINDE, 1995. “Towards a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No.4, Fall, pp. 97-118.

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE PUBLICATION SERIES, 2000. Environmental and Energy Taxation in Finland – Summary of the Working Group Report.

RCEP, 1994. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Eighteenth Report: Transport and the Environment, London: HMSO.

SCHLEGELMILCH, K., 1997. Green Tax Commissions, Policy Brief Number 4, Environmental Policy Research Briefs, Environmental Institute, University College, Dublin.

SCOTT, S. and J. EAKINS, 2002. “Household Income effects and compensation issues” in D.McCoy and S. Scott (eds.), Green and bear it? Implementing market-based policies for Ireland’s environment. Conference proceedings, Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute, this volume.

SORRELL, S. and J. SKEA,1998. Pollution for Sale, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. SPRENGER, R. U., 1997. Environmental Policies and Employment, OECD, Paris.

SPRENGER, R. U., 1999. “Environmental policy and international competitiveness: the case of Germany” in J. Van den Bergh, Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

STERNER, T. 1990. The Pricing of, and Demand for, Gasoline, Swedish Transport Research Board, Report 1990:9, Stockholm.

ACCEPTABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS 97

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 1997. Environmental Taxes in Sweden, Stockholm.

UK GOVERNMENT, 1999. The Environmental Appraisal of the Fuel Duty Escalator, Memorandum, London.

VAN DEN BERGH, Jeroen C.J.M., 1999. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.

UNCTAD, 1994. Sustainable Development: “Trade and Environment – the Impact of Environment related Policies in Export Competitiveness and Market Access.” TD/B/41(1)/4, UNCTAD, Geneva.

UNITED NATIONS CENTRE ON TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS (UNCTC), 1985. Environmental Aspects of the Activities of Multinational Corporations: a Survey, UN New York.

US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, 1991. “US Mexico Trade: Some US Wood Furniture firms relocated from Los Angeles to Mexico,” Report Number GAO/NSIAD-91-191, Washington DC.