What if you could reduce air pollution, increase energy efficiency and stimulate the nation?s economy all at the same time? A group of researchers says the U.S could achieve all those goals. Their plan falls into the larger category of ?environmental taxation,? a relatively young movement aimed at rearranging the economy to benefit the planet. International environmental taxation experts recently gathered for a meeting in Vermont. NHPR?s Trish Anderton reports.
IT?S A BOLD PLAN, AND A COMPLICATED ONE. YOU?D START BY HIKING TAXES ON ENERGY. EASE THE PAIN FOR ORDINARY AMERICANS BY CUTTING TAXES ON WAGES. PUT MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING INTO CLEAN, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. GIVE DISPLACED OIL AND COAL WORKERS MONEY FOR RETRAINING OR EARLY RETIREMENT. IN THE END, ACCORDING TO ECONOMIST ANDREW HOERNER, WHAT YOU?D GET IS A CLEANER AND MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT UNITED STATES.
Our plan cuts greenhouse gases in half and improves efficiency. Our plan would cut oil imports from the middle east by approximately the same amount as current imports from all OPEC nations.
AND, SAYS HOERNER, IT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, CREATING 1.4 MILLION JOBS BY THE YEAR 2020. HOERNER HELPED DRAW UP THE PLAN AS A RESEARCHER AT THE CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY. SPEAKING IN WOODSTOCK VERMONT AT THE RECENT ?GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL TAXATION,? HE ADMITS IT?S UNLIKELY TO BE ADOPTED WHOLESALE. BUT HE HOPES PARTS OF IT WILL BECOME LAW.
24 145 other groups have noticed the plan would be good for the economy and the environment. there are extensive efforts to put some of elements forward in the political process.
ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES ARE DESIGNED TO CREATE A CLEANER PLANET, OFTEN BY MAKING POLLUTION MORE EXPENSIVE. THEY?RE ALREADY IN USE HERE AND AROUND THE GLOBE. LOCAL EXAMPLES INCLUDE CURRENT USE TAXES AND THE GASOLINE TAX. THERE?S A MORE EXTREME CASE IN SINGAPORE, WHICH TOOK STEPS IN THE 1980?S TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM DRIVING. PROFESSOR LIE LIN HING OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE EXPLAINS THE GOVERNMENT SHARPLY INCREASED TAXES ON CARS. IT ALSO INSTITUTED A ROAD PRICING SYSTEM THAT VARIES THE TOLLS ON EXPRESSWAYS TO INFLUENCE COMMUTING PATTERNS.
13 15 there are certain peak hours when people are going to work and that?s when you make it more expensive. They have alternatives. They could take train. If they want to use the car, they pay.
SOME ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES AIM TO CUT DOWN ON TRASH, SUCH AS DENMARK?S TAX ON PACKAGING. OTHERS ARE DESIGNED TO SAVE OPEN SPACE, LIKE THE 3% PROPERTY TAX ON MASSACHUSETTS? CAPE COD, EARMARKED FOR LAND PRESERVATION. RESEARCHER PHYLLIS MYERS.
An average payment of $50 per house is paying for land bank so town can buy land. They werent easy to approve but voters decided they were reasonable for keeping growth down.
ENVIRONMENTAL TAX SUPPORTERS ARE OPTIMISTIC THEIR IDEAS ARE GAINING GROUND. BUT THEY ADMIT THERE ARE MANY CHALLENGES TO MAKING THE TAX CODE GREENER. FOR ONE THING, TAXES DON?T ALWAYS WORK THE WAY THEY?RE DESIGNED. PROFESSOR HING SAYS SINGAPORE USED TO WAIVE SOME ROAD FEES FOR CARS WITH FOUR OR MORE OCCUPANTS. THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE CARPOOLING.
But it never worked out that way. In practice, you have the wife bring the husband to work with the maid and the baby (laughs). So we learned and we stopped that.
FURTHERMORE, ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES CAN BE REGRESSIVE. A HIGHER GASOLINE TAX IS HARDEST ON PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE INCOME SCALE. AND BUSINESSES TEND TO OPPOSE TAX INCREASES, ARGUING THEY?RE ANTI-COMPETITIVE AND BAD FOR CONSUMERS. DAN ESTY OF THE YALE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY SAYS THE INCREASINGLY GLOBAL ECONOMY MAKES THE PLAYING FIELD EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.
11 100 there is real concern about risk that any one country?s policy will disadvantage business. And that makes it hard to move forward with things like taxes that raise prices.
IN ADDITION, POLITICIANS SOMETIMES EXEMPT THE BIGGEST POLLUTERS IN ORDER TO GET A TAX PASSED. THAT NOT ONLY DILUTES THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX. IT MAKES IT HARDER TO SHOW CLEAR RESULTS. BUT MANY SUPPORTERS BELIEVE CONSUMERS AND COMPANIES ARE GETTING MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES. AGAIN, RESEARCHER ANDREW HOERNER.
What we?re seing is more people coming together and realizing that there are win win solutions that solve both environmental and economic problems, that it?s a question of smart design vs dumb design rather than environment vs economy.
THE ENVIRONMENT HAS NOT PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE?S RECENT STRUGGLES OVER TAXES. BUT A UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RESEARCHER SAYS THE CONTROVERSIAL STATEWIDE PROPERTY TAX COULD BE RETOOLED TO BE GREENER. RICHARD ENGLAND IS STUDYING THE LAND VALUE TAX, WHICH HE THINKS WOULD SPARK THE STATE?S ECONOMY WHILE DISCOURAGING SPRAWL. ENGLAND SAYS UNDER THIS SYSTEM, BUILDINGS WOULD BE TAXED LESS AND LAND, MORE.
17 118 the idea is if you tax land more heavily, there?s an incentive to use land more economically, //for example, if you have developer building a mall and they knew the buildings would be taxed lightly and land heavily, it might make sense to put up a parking garage instead of acres and acres of ground level parking space.
ENGLAND HASN?T EVALUATED THE TAX?S FAIRNESS, OR WHETHER A STATEWIDE TAX WOULD RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO MEET NEW HAMPSHIRE?S MAJOR FISCAL CHALLENGE: PAYING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. HE DOESN?T PLAN TO TURN HIS RESEARCH INTO A PROPOSAL, BUT ENGLAND SAYS ANYONE WHO?S INTERESTED IS WELCOME TO LOOK AT HIS WORK. FOR NHPR NEWS I?M
