Rationale for a 'carbon tax'

炭素税について論議を

According to the ministry plan, the tax would be imposed on all types of fossil fuel, such as petroleum, coal and natural gas. It would be levied on electricity as well. In the case of gasoline, the tax rate would be ¥1.5 per liter, raising annual household energy bills by an estimated ¥3,000 on average.

This and other related plans are to be discussed by the government's Tax Commission. Nippon Keidanren, or the Japan Business Federation, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, oppose the tax, known as the environment tax, on the grounds that it would slow economic growth. They should consider its merits with other practicable measures, such as the trading of emissions rights.

This is crunch time for Japan, one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. Now that the government's review of its policy guidelines on climate change is entering the final stages, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi should exercise the kind of leadership that will spur Japan to come up with a realistic program to achieve the 6 percent target.

Japan's output of greenhouse gases has continued to expand: In fiscal 2003, it increased to a level 8 percent above that of 1990. So, to achieve the target, the nation must cut its emissions as much as 14 percent. There is not much time left — a little more than three years — before the five-year reduction period is to begin.

The proposed tax, which would apply to all fossil fuels whose use results in the discharge of CO2into the air, would be a ¥2,400 levy on every ton of carbon contained in these energy resources. At this rate, the impact on economic growth may well be tolerable. The ministry's attempt to ease concerns in industrial circles can be seen in its plan to make an exception of coal, an essential raw material for steel.

How much tax should be levied is a crucial question. A lower tax rate means less pressure to increase energy prices. But the purpose of the tax — limiting the use of fossil fuels — may not be achieved if the tax rate is too low. One is left to wonder how much a ¥1.5-per-liter increase in the price of gasoline would help reduce consumption. In the longer run, though, the carbon tax will likely promote environmental awareness on the part of consumers. When buying water heaters or cars, for example, they may choose more energy-efficient types.

The ministry estimates that the proposed tax will bring in about ¥490 billion a year in new revenues. The money would be used to finance corporate and household energy-saving measures, and related job-training programs. If the revenue were to be used entirely for the prevention of global warming, it would lead to an estimated 4 percent reduction in emissions.

The government is spending more than ¥1.2 trillion a year on programs to prevent global warming. It is important to examine how this money is helping to cut emissions. The carbon tax will not likely gain the support of taxpayers unless they are given a say in how to use the revenue.

It is important to adjust existing energy taxes, which exceed ¥5 trillion a year. One option is to cut these levies by imposing a proportionally higher tax on fossil fuels. That will keep the combined tax revenue unchanged.

The carbon tax is a means of changing the modality of an industrial society that depends heavily on non-renewable energy resources. The question is how best to attain the target in ways acceptable to taxpayers. For that, the government must first present more specific cost estimates.

There are other means of reducing emissions, such as trading emissions credits between nations and companies. The question is, what is the best policy mix possible to attain the goal? This should be discussed broadly, including by the industrial community. It would be good if agreement were reached in the coming year so that the carbon tax could be introduced in 2006.

The Japan Times Weekly
Nov. 20, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      環境省案によれば、石油、石炭、天然ガスなど化石燃料すべてと電力が炭素税の課税対象になる。ガソリンに対する税率はリッターあたり1.5円である。

      日本経団連と経済産業省は、経済成長に対する影響を考え炭素税に反対している。小泉首相は温室効果ガス6%削減の目標達成に向け、現実的政策作りに指導性を発揮すべきだ。

      日本の温室効果ガスの排出は2003年度には1990年に比べ8%増えた。議定書の目標達成のためには今後14%も排出を削減せねばならない。

      提案されている炭素税は、化石燃料の炭素含有量1トンあたり2400円となるが、この程度であれば経済に対する影響も深刻ではないだろう。

      税率は大きな問題だ。税率を低くすれば燃料値上げの圧力は弱まるが、化石燃料の使用を制限するという目的に適わない。しかし、長期的に見れば、炭素税は消費者の問題意識を高めることになる。

      環境省は、新税の導入により年間4900億円の税収を予想している。この税収は企業、家庭の省エネ対策、関連職業訓練計画に支出する予定だが、もし支出目的を地球温暖化防止に限定すれば、4%の温室効果ガス削減が可能という。

      政府は地球温暖化防止計画に年間1兆2000億円を計上しているが、予算が温室効果ガス排出削減に役立っているのかを検証する必要がある。

      国家、企業間の排出権取引などを通じて排出を削減する方法もある。問題は、目標達成のためにどんな政策の組み合わせが最善かということだ。広い観点から議論し、2006年の炭素税導入に向けて合意形成を図るべきである。