In my analysis, Ireland adopted the concept of polluter pay principles to achieve the objective of revenue neutral to generate the fund to clean the environment (John Leaman, 2003) [Online]. The definition of polluter pay principle is assign the cost to those who pollute the environment for they damaged they have caused (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. The reason why I stated the Ireland adopt the concept of polluter pay principle because the shopper are liable to pay the tax €15 cents when they purchase the plastic bag at the check out (Jutexpo UK. 2003). The tax will stated clear in your receipt then the retailer will send the collection to the Environmental fund for spending eco-efficiency (Jutexpo UK, 2003). It is considered revenue neutral because the polluters have the responsibilities to bear the cost to clean up the environment (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. Polluters have the alternatives either to pay their own to cleanup or decide not to purchase the plastic bag (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online].
In order to achieve the criteria easy to avoid paying the tax, the consumer have to bring their own reusable bags when going to shopping (Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 2002) [Online]. However there is exemption for the bags used to pack fresh meat, fish, poultry, vegetable, fruit and the goods sold in plastic bag to consumer in the restricted area such as airport, commercial ship and aircraft (Jutexpo UK, 2003) [Online]. In Ireland, the cost of reusable bags are €70 cents per bag and the mesh bags are sold for €1.00 per each, therefore the consumer may either pay the tax to purchases plastic bag rather than uses the reusable bag or mesh bag (Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 2002.) [Online].
In my conclusion, the ways of Ireland to impose the tax on plastic bag are not generate the revenue because the tax revenue collected are used by the Environmental Fund for spending on the worthwhile eco-friendly initiatives.
Nitrogen Dioxide Tax
By late 1980, Sweden have serious problem because suffer the acidification of soil and water due to the nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide (International Institute for Sustainable Development, No Date) [Online]. Acidification has damaged the ecosystem, killing the animal, damaged the forest and degenerating the building and historic monuments in Southern Sweden (Stephan Barg et.el, 2000) [Online]. Around 20% of forest have damaged because of the land is so acidic (International Institute for Sustainable Development, No Date) [Online]. Therefore, Sweden began to impose the tax on the nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide on January 1,1992 to reduce the emission from combustion plants at a faster pace than was expected by minimum emission limits and licenses for specific plants (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. It is necessarily to install the expensive monitoring equipment to measure the NOx emission and the cost of installing the equipment is estimated SEK 300,000 per plant which was quite substantial (Jean-Philippe Barde and Stephen Smith, 1997) [Online]. The plants subject to pay tax have installed the equipment to assess measure the tax properly (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online]. Therefore, the charge only applied at largest and power-heating plant however the reimbursements are not included excluding the monitoring, measurement and the administrative cost (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. Mostly the largest power planting, waste incinerating plant, chemical and metal industries are liable to pay tax when they have a capacity of 10 megawatts (Mw) and produce more than 50 gigawatts hours (GWh) (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. However there are some exemptions for the direct industrial combustion process such as melting of raw material or combustion in oven for the refining crude oil because it is hard to diffuse and too costly to measure (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. The plant that produces less than 50 GWh is exempt because it gives competitive advantages to the small plant. (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online].
In 1992, Sweden’s nitrogen oxide emission charge is 40 SEK ($5.9) per kg ($5,400 per short ton) on the producer with a capacity 10 MW and has more than 50 GWh, which intend to have a significant incentive effect (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online]. More than 120 heating plant and industrial facilities are liable to pay the tax because they have 180 boilers (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online]. The tax revenues are used by the Environmental Protection Agency to decrease the income thus nation would benefit from the revenue neutral tax reform however the power plan sector could be damaged considerably (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. In order to maintain the revenue neutral for the plant sector, so Sweden try to improve the competitive position (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. The tax revenue will rebate to the taxpayer based on the ratio of amount they produce (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. It means the taxpayer who produce small amount of nitrogen oxide per unit of energy then they will receive a fund greater than the tax and the high emission will only rebate (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. It is known as Swedish Refund System (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online].
At the end of January 1992, the plant that liable to pay the tax must submit the detail of the energy production, calculation based of the charge owed and calibration certificate of their monitoring equipment from the independent examiner (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. Examining is taken to ensure the honest reporting (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. On October, the facilities facing net charge must pay and reimbursement for the entitle plant are paid out by December 1st (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online].
Before the tax impose on nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, most of companies are working hard to reduce the level of emission that will charge on 1992 (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. Since the companies are liable to pay tax, therefore the offer the bonus to operator when the level of emission are low (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. In other hand, the companies try to use different method such as changing fuels, alter the combustion process or install NOx reducing equipment to reduce the level of emissions (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online].
The well designed tax policy able to keep the total of money among the polluters merely redistributing it in accord with their effectiveness at reducing NOx emission (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. Nonetheless, tax system is effective to reduce 35% in NOx within 20 month after implement the charge (Jean-Philippe Barde and Stephen Smith, 1997) [Online]. The level of emission decrease was not due to the consumption of energy (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online]. In 1991, the emission per mega-joule fell from 150 mg NOx/MJ to 99 mg NOx/MJ (U.S Environmental Protect Agency, 1999) [Online].
In my analysis, the policy used by the Swedish provides incentives to reduce the level of nitrogen oxide emission for the plant are successful alter the commercial behaviour because the tax system is effective reduce 35% in NOx emission within 20 months (Jean-Philippe Barde and Stephen Smith, 1997) [Online]. Sweden provides incentives to the producers to alter their business decision either to internalise environmental cost or choose to reward more sustainable practice (National Round Table On The Environment and The Economy, 2002) [Online]. The businesses have the choice of effectively funding a competitor’s of new efficiency program versus their own; they will upgrade their system to reduce the pollution (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online].
Swedish Refund System is 100% motivation policy to reduce the industry opposition to its implementation (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. It is revenue neutral because it rewards and penalized the polluter based on the ratio amount of pollution and it is cheap to administer System (Hanno Beck et.el, 1998) [Online]. Thus the firms have responded positively to the incentives offer by the government, and many have able achieve the objective in cost reduction (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. The system is revenue neutral because it would give competitive advantages to the small plant (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online]. However, the firms do not required to lower the emission because only the producer have found cost effective to pursued reduction (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online].
In my research, I found out the Sweden give some exemption to the plant to avoid paying tax if the plants produce less than 50GWh and direct industrial combustion processes such as the melting of raw material, or combustion in ovens for the refining crude oil because cost of measuring the NOx are too high to merit the benefit of reduced emission from the producers (Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2002) [Online].
Reference:
ACCA, 2002. Environmental Taxes [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 25 February 2006]
Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005. Corporate Sustainability. Environmental Taxes and Objective To Environmental Taxes. [Online]. 2005. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 18: February 2006]
Green Press, London. 2005. A Green Manifesto, Education for Environmental Consciousness[Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Hanno Beck, Brian Dunkiel and Gawain Kripke. 1998. Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Tax Shifting. For a Cleaner Environment Stronger Economy Fairer Tax Code. [Online] 1998. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
International Institute for Sustainable Development, No Date. The Nitrogen Oxide Charge on Energy Production in Sweden [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 8 March 2006]
Jean-Philippe Barde and Stephen Smith, 1997. Do Economic Instrument Help The Environment? [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Jim Sinner and Guy Salmon. 2003. A Report To The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Irish Plastic Bag Levy. [Online]. ]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[ Accessed: 28 February 2006]
John Leaman. 2003. Public Support For Tax on Shopping Bags [Online]. 28 April 2003.
Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Jutexpo UK. 2003. The Plastic Bag Levy[Online].2003 Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 8 March 2006]
Mainewatch Institute. No Date. Economic Policy and Taxation. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web [Accessed: 20 February 2006]
National Round Table On The Environment and The Economy. 2002. Toward a Canadian Agenda For Ecological Fiscal Reform: First Steps . [Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 7 March 2006]
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 2002. The Use of Economic Instrument in Nordic Environment Policy 1999-2001. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Stephan Barg, Anantha Duraiappah and Sarah Van Exan. 2000. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Economic Instruments For Environmental Policy Making in Ontario [Online] 1 December 2000. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
U.S Environmental Protect Agency. 1999. Sweden’s Nitrogen Oxide Charge. [Online].6 July 1999. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
The Department of Environment Heritage & Local Government. 2004. Plastic Bags [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
=
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2002. Plastic Shopping Bag Report [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 28 February 2006]
Bibliography
Alan Keyes. 2001. Bush’s Road to An Energy Tax. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 16 February 2006]
Alberto Majocchi and Marco Lia. 2002. Environmental Taxes And Border Tax Adjustments An Economic Assessment. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts. 2002. Restructuring Taxes To Protect the Environment.
[Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Britt Groosman, 1998. Pollution Tax. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Carlton N. Owen. 2003.Key Learning. Who Will Own The Forest? A conference Sponsored By World Forestry Center [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Carla Carnaghan & Kenneth J. Klassen. 2003.Univeristy Of Waterloo. E-Commerce and International Tax Planning. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Charles L. Ballard, John H Goddeeris and Sang-Kyum Kim.2004. Non Homothetic Preferences and Non Environmental Effects to Environmental Taxes. [Online] 4 June 2004.
Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 14 February 2006]
Christoph Bohringer and Thomas F.Rutherford. 2004. In Search of Rationale for Differentiated Environmental Taxes. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 16 February 2006]
Clive Hamilton, Richard Denniss & Hal Turton. 2002. Taxes and Charges for Environmental Protection. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
David Boyd. 2005. Sustainability Within A Generation. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
David Callahan, 1990. The American Prospect, Inc. The Greening of Tax System [Online]. 21 September 1990. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
David Gee. 1996. Environmental Taxes. Implementation And Environmental Effectiveness [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
David Morris. 1994. Institutes for Local Reliance. Green Taxes. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web: [Accessed: 7 March 2006]
Eirik S. Amundsen & Ronnie Schod. 1998. Environmental Taxes on Exhaustible Resources
[Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from The U.S Government. 2004.
Norway: Environmental Issues. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 10 February 2006]
Gerhard Glomm, Daiji Kawaguchi. Facundo Sepulveda. 2004. Green Taxes And Double Dividend in A Dynamic Economy. [Online] 25 May 2004. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Gilbert E.Metcalf. 2003. Tufts University and NBER. Pollution Taxes in a Second-Best World.
[Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 1 March 2006]
Hon Dr Michael Cullen And Hon Peter Hodgson. 2005. Implementing The Carbon Taxes [Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 6 February 2006]
Ian W.H Parry. 1997. Reducing Carbon Emission: Interaction With Tax System Raise the Cost.
[Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 7 February 2006]
Ian W.H Parry and Roberton C.William III. 2004. The Death of the Pigovian Tax: Comment.
[Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Ian W.H Parry. 2002. Are Tradable Emissions Permits A Good Idea? [Online] November 2002
Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Jack Mintz and Michael Smart. 2002. Income Shifting, Investment and Tax Competition Theory and Evidence From Provincial Taxation In Canada. [Online] 6 September 2002. Available from: World Wide Web: [Accessed: 1 March 2006]
Jim Sinner and Guy Salmon, 2003. Creating Economic Incentives For Sustainable Development [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 27 February 2006]
John Cage. 2001. Taxes That Work for Our Environment and the Economy.
[Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
John Ablett and Neil Hart. 2002. Australian Manufacturing Industry And Forward Shifting Of The Corporate Income tax. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Kathleen Pender. 2005. Adding Up The Cost of Bags. [Online] 25 January 2005
Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 15 February 2006]
Marc Lacey. 2005. Flower of Africa: A Curse That's Blowing in the Wind. [Online]. 7 April 2005. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 21 February 2006]
Mustafa H. Babiker, Gilbert E. Metcalf and John Reilly. 2002. Tax Distortions And Global Climate Policy. [Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 21 February 2006]
Nancy Goodman and Anne Reynolds. 2001. Environmental Tax Shifting In MassachusettsTaxes Work for Our Environmental and Economy. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Peter Hoeller and Markku Walim. 1991. Energy Prices, Taxes and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
[Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 16 February 2006]
Professor Janet E. Milne Director, 2006. Vermont Law School. Environmental Tax Policy Institute, What is Environmental Taxation? [Online] 2006. Available from: World Wide Web: [Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Randall A.Bluffstone, 2003. Department of Economic, University of Redlands, Environmental Taxes In Developing and Transition Economies? [Online] Available from: World Wide Web: [Accessed: 18 February 2006]
Roy E. Cordato. 1998. Should There Be A Carbon Subsidy? [Online] Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 16 February 2006]
Ruud A. Demoou. 1998. OCFEB, Erasmus University Rotterdam; CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Environmental Taxes, International Capital Mobility and Inefficient Tax System: Tax Burden vs. Tax Shifting. [Online] Available from: World Wide
[Accessed: 16 February 2006]
Sara Ives. 2004. Are Plastic Bags Harming The Environment? [Online] 5 April 2004
Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Sofia Ahlroth. 2000. Correcting NDP For SO2 And NOX Emissions Implementation of A Theoretical Model In Practice. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 20 February 2006]
Stephen Bond, Alexander Klemm and Helen Simpson. 2001. Labour And Business Taxes. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 8 March 2006]
Susan Scott. 2002. Conference on Environmental Fiscal Reform. [Online] 27 June 2002.
Available from: World Wide Web:
[Accessed: 8 March 2006]
Ted Halstead. 1998. Why Tax Work? [Online] Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 2 March 2006]
Wikipedia, 2006. Externality [Online] 17 February 2006. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 28 February 2006]
William K. Jaegar, 2003. Environmental Taxation and the double dividend. [Online]. Available from: World Wide Web
[Accessed: 6 March 2006]
Hoo Wei Kuen ID NO: 0600224 -