Policy Progress of Carbon Taxation to Mitigate Climate Change in Northeast Asia

1. Policy Progress of Carbon Taxation to Mitigate Climate Change in Northeast Asia Dr. Xianbing LIU Senior Policy Researcher Kansai Research Centre Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

2. Presentation Structure • Background; • A glance of the latest climate policies in China, Japan and Korea; • Academic discussions of carbon tax policy with relevance; • Progress of carbon tax policy in the three countries; • A comparison of carbon tax proposals in the three countries; • Summary UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

3. Outline of IGES • Establishment: March 31, 1998 • Personnel (As of Sep. 2009): Researchers: 81(32)*; Research Support and PR Staff: 38(20); Administration Staff: 20(5); Inter-Governmental Programme: 32(8). *The figures in brackets show the subtotal of visiting researcher and part-time staff. • Working Languages: Japanese and English Issue cluster: Climate Change, Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Cons. & Prod. Groups; Discipline cluster: Economy and Environment and Governance and Capacity Groups; Stakeholder cluster: Kansai Research Centre; Kitakyushu Urban Centre; Bangkok and Beijing Offices UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

4. Research Focus at KRC/IGES Established: June, 2001 Research Focus: “Business and the Environment” Ongoing projects: - Market-based instruments for improving firms’ carbon performance in NE Asia (MBIs); - Research partnership for the application of low carbon technology for sustainable development (ALCT); - Local business initiatives (LBI) - Co-benefit technology (CT) Information disclosure strategy was focused in the past three years UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

5. Target Countries of MBIs Project (FY2010-12) Japan (2008) China (2005) Korea (2007) Stable, yearly 0.6%↑ 152.8% (yearly 5.1%)↑ 96.7% (yearly 4.2%)↑ UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

6. The Latest Climate Policies in the Three Countries UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

7. Research Discussions of Carbon Tax with Relevance Japan: Nakata and Lamont(2001) indicate that carbon tax does suppress the increase of CO2 emissions, and suggest energy tax as a more stable approach for Japan. Takeda (2007) confirms the strong double dividend does not arise from the reductions in labor and consumption taxes but arises from the reduction in capital tax. Carbon tax policy would be possibly introduced and implemented if it could be combined with reductions of capital tax. China: Liang et al. (2007) confirm that the negative impact of carbon tax on the economy could be alleviated in case of relieving or subsidizing the production sectors. Under a preferable scheme with tax completely exempted for Iron and steel, building materials, Chemicals, non-ferrous metals and paper industry while being identical for all the other sectors, the tax rate is 163 Yuan/t-C (at 2002 price, US$5.4/t-CO2) if the reduction target is set to be 5%. And the rate is 348 Yuan/t-C (about 11.5US$/t-CO2) in the case of 10% reduction target. Korea: Kwon and Heo (2010) suggest that an upstream carbon tax equivalent to 36,545 Won/t-CO2 (about 31.0 US$/t- CO2) need to be imposed to meet the government’ medium-term reduction target. They also finds that a carbon tax system without revenue-recycling is regressive. Whereas, recycling the revenue enhances income redistribution, and a lump-sum transfer of the revenue would make the carbon tax policy progressive. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

8. Progress of Carbon Tax Policy in Japan (1/2) The existing energy taxes were estimated to contribute to 0.9% of carbon emission reduction (Kawase et al., 2004) 1 Temporary tariff rate 2 Under consideration Carbon tax has been discussed since early 1990s in working groups of MOEJ: ◈ Two different tax rate streams: High tax rate (about 45,000 Yen/t-C), or low tax rate (about 3,400 Yen/t-C) in combination with subsidies specific to anti-climate change activities. ◈ Tax system: A supplementary of existing energy-related taxes. ◈ The spots for taxation: At upstream like importers and exploitation enterprises of fossil fuels, petroleum refinery companies, etc. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

9. Progress of Carbon Tax Policy in Japan (2/2) ◈ Tax revenue:Estimated by MOEJ, a total of 2.0 trillion Yen revenues may be achieved by introducing the proposed carbon tax. ◈ Relief measures: Following items are considered to be exempted from taxation: - Fossil fuel as raw material (Naphtha); - Coal and cokes for iron and steel manufacturing; - Coal for cement manufacturing; - Bunker A for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Expected effectiveness If introduced since 2009 Final energy use in 2020 Final energy use in 2030 10,000 Yen/t-C (2,727 Yen/t-CO2) Reduction by 5.2% (Compared with the BAU levels) Reduction by 5.7% (Compared with the BAU levels) 2,400 Yen/t-C※ (655 Yen/t-CO2) Reduction by 1.3% (Compared with the BAU levels) Reduction by 1.5% (Compared with the BAU levels) ※This is the same tax rate as the proposal of MOEJ in 2009. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

10. Progress of Carbon Tax Policy in China Existing taxes concerning environment and resource issues In recent 2-3 years, the experts from research institutes under Ministry of Environmental Protection (MOEP), Ministry of Finance (MOF) and State Administration of Taxation (SAT) strongly discussed how to develop carbon tax policy in China. China will face greater pressure to control its GHG emissions after 2012. To impose carbon tax around 2012 is consistent with Chinese strategy of adding policies on controlling CO2 emissions in a timely manner. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

11. Proposal of Carbon Tax Policy in China (1/2) The targets and scope: - Limited to fossil fuels including coal, oil and natural gas; • Should not charge on electricity to avoid double taxation; • Should not charge on the fuel use of households. Discussions of taxation spots Impose on the producers of fossil fuels Impose on the wholesalers, retailers & users -The price signal would decrease along the fuel supply chain; -As the number of the producers is much smaller, the cost for tax collection would be low. - The tax collection is very difficult (costly); - Since the tax is charged directly from carbon emitters, it is supposed to more effectively encourage in reduction of energy use. The spots for carbon taxation: - Imposed at the source of energy exploitation or energy distribution hub; - For coal, petroleum and natural gas, tax should be paid by the resource exploitation companies; for refined oils like gasoline and diesel, etc., tax should be paid by the refinery companies. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

12. Proposal of Carbon Tax Policy in China (2/2) Proposal of carbon tax rate (Su et al.(2009) Observations: ◈ A gradual process for tax setting; ◈ Differential tax ratesare set depending on energy type; ◈ Carbon tax rate on coal is relatively low. Tax relief measures: - Appropriate tax exemption and return mechanism should be established for the energy-intensive industries more likely to be affected by carbon tax policy; - Tax refund is provided as incentives for the enterprises with significant emission reductions, or increased investment in energy saving, improved energy efficiency by using advanced technologies; - For low-income groups, tax return shall be offered to guarantee their basic living and maintain social stability. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

13. Progress of Carbon Tax Policy in Korea Existing energy-related tax: - A higher energy tax rate (74.8%) for gasoline than Japan (56.2%) and the U.S. (31.0%); - A lower tax rate (39.9%) for transport diesel than Japan (52.4%) and UK (72.1%); - Generally supported industrial rather than household fuel consumption. • Increase the price of diesel and LPG up to 80% and 65% of gasoline price; • For industrial fuel, increase the price of Bunker C by 28% and keep LNG price unchanged. • Adjust import charges based on calorific values Step-wise reform The expected effect of the reform would be around 7.6% of reduction of CO2 emissions (Lee, 2005). Negative opinion Positive opinion - Possibility of transferring tax burden from producers to consumers, particularly when the product is price inelastic; - May lead to production decrease and yield wage decrease and unemployment; - The worst victim compared with its main trading countries due to the high reliance to energy imports. Possibility of enhancing the competitiveness of industries by investing in research and development. ◈ General attitude toward carbon tax in Korea is rather positive among the environmental scholars and specialists. ◈ Many Koreans think they have experienced the dependency on fossil fuel using productions and it is necessary to develop energy efficient economy structure. ◈ Latest proposal of carbon tax rate by MoSF is 34-96 Won/l or Kg fuel (25 Euro/t-CO2), total revenue would be 8.5 Trill. Won/year. ◈ This proposal will be further discussed and expected to be introduced from 2012. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

14. A Comparison of Proposals in the Three Countries Spots for taxation ◈ Considering the cost and difficulty of tax collection, all the proposals of carbon tax policy in the three countries suggest levying the tax on the fuels containing carbon; ◈ The importers, producers, wholesalers and retailers of fossil fuels at most upstream or upstream would be defined as the targets for the tax levy; ◈ A shortage of this choice is the relatively weak effect of the price signal from carbon tax as energy producers are far away from the large number of end users. Tax rate Due to the concern of negative impacts of carbon tax on economic growth and industrial competency in the international market, especially for those energy and carbon-intensive industries, the proposed carbon tax rate is low. Tax relief All the discussions and proposals of carbon tax in the three countries considered tax relief measures in order to reduce the negative impacts of this policy on economy and industries. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

15. Barriers for Carbon Tax Introduction Japan: - Strong resistance of industrial lobbies, such as Keidanren, is the most crucial factor blocking the implementation of carbon tax; - Highly multifaceted political issue like the environmental tax reform requires inter-ministerial cooperation between competent ministries. However, it is very hard to harmonize their interests. China: - The attitudes of related ministries at national level are positive to the reform of environmental taxes. However, as carbon tax is a new category of tax in China, the enterprises would be reluctant at the beginning; - It will take time for the public to recognize and well understand this new tax. - Additional barriers include the decrease of product competency in international market, the impacts on the people with different income levels. Korea: - Have to work out measures to absorb a possible shock to manufacturing industries for businesses to shift to the low-carbon strategy. - Carbon tax should not serve as a means to raise tax burdens on consumers. The government must make efforts to build public consensus on the tax issue in particular. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

16. Findings of a Survey to Chinese SMEs (N=125) Observations: ◈ Encouraging involvement of energy-saving activities in overall; ◈ Good practices of simply managerial activities for saving energy; ◈ Lower practices of technological upgrading for energy efficiency; ◈ Weak in monitoring and statistics of internal energy uses. Quite low understanding of MBIs, particularly on carbon tax. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

17. Brief Summary • The design of carbon tax scheme, including the scope, tax rate, collection and utilization of the tax is important and need to adapt the actual situations of each country, which thus requests more discussions for convincing the decision-makers. • Our overview identifies the problems of target countries in implementing carbon tax policy due to political resistance and energy structure characteristics. • As the taxation of carbon may cause a shift from coal to other low carbon energies, the existing energy tax with additional carbon tax as the supplementary would be a more stable and acceptable approach for Japan and Korea with high reliance on energy imports. • As the way forward, discussions of acceptability to carbon tax from the perspective of individual companies are necessary to overcome the resistance to this policy. UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland

18. Thank you for your attention! Contacts: Xianbing LIU KRC/IGES Tel: +81-78-262-6634 Fax: +81-78-262-6635 E-mal: liu@iges.or.jp URL: http://www.iges.or.jp UNDP Seminar at GSSD Expo, Geneva, Switzerland