Kirlilik Emisyonlarının Azaltılmasında Çevre Vergilerinin Rolü: AB Ülkeleri Örneği

Abstract

Ekonomik literatürde çevre vergileri, kirlilik ve iklim değişikliği gibi çevre sorunlarının azaltılmasında temel araçlardan biri olarak önerilmiştir. Bu tür vergiler ekonomik birimlerin dışsal maliyetlerini içselleştirdiği için teşvik temelli mekanizmalar olarak sınıflandırılmaktadır. Bu çalışma 21 AB ülkesi için 1995-2017 yılları arasında çevre vergileri ve hava kirliliği ile ilgili seragazı, karbondioksit, sülfür oksit, nitrojen oksit gibi çeşitli kirlilik emisyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Panel AMG tahmincisi sonuçları pek çok AB ülkesinde çevre vergilerinin seragazı, karbondioksit, sülfür oksit, nitrojen oksit gibi çevresel kirlilik emisyonlarını azalttığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, çevre vergisinden seragazı emisyonuna doğru tek yönlü, sülfüroksit emisyonundan çevre vergisine doğru tek yönlü, çevre vergisi ile CO2 emisyonu ve nitrojenoksit emisyonları arasında ise iki yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Çevre Vergisi
• Çevresel Kirlilik
• Panel Veri Analizi

The Role of Environmental Taxes in Reducing Pollution Emissions: The Case of EU Countries

Abstract

In the economic literature environmental taxes have been proposed as one of the main tools for reducing environmental problems such as pollution and climate change. Such type taxes are classified as incentive-based mechanisms as they internalize the external costs of economic units. This study aimed to examine the relationship between environmental taxes and various pollution emissions such as greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides related to air pollution and for 21 EU countries between 1995-2017. Panel AMG estimator results revealed that environmental taxes reduce environmental pollution emissions such as greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides in many EU countries. In addition, it is found that a one-way causality from environmental tax to greenhouse gas emission and from sulfuroxide emission to environmental tax, bilateral causality relationship between environmental tax and CO2 emission and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Keywords

• Environmental Tax
• Environmnetal Pollution
• Panel Data Analysis

References

1. Alvarez, M. (2019). Distributional effects of environmental taxation: an approximation with a meta-regression analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 62, 382–401.
2. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M. Roubaud, D., Farhani ve S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions?. Energy Policy, 113, 356-367.
3. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
4. Bond, S.R. ve Eberhardt, M. (2013). Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series models. University of Oxford.
5. Bosquet, B. (2000). Environmental tax reform: does it work? a survey of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 34, 19–32.
6. Cadoret, I., Galli, E. ve Padovano, F. (2020). Environmental taxation: Pigouvian or Leviathan?. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics.
7. Castiglione, C., Infante, D. Minervini, M. T. ve Smirnova, J. (2014). Environmental taxation in Europe: what does ıt depend on?. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2(1), 967362, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2014.967362.
8. Congressıonal Budget Offıce (2013). Effects of a carbon tax on the economy and the environment. CBO reports 44223.

9. Donatella B. ve Mario M. (2010). Pigouvian Tax, Abatement Policies and Uncertainty on the Environment. Journal of Economics, 1-2.
10. Dökmen, G. (2012). Environmental tax and economic growth: a panel VAR analysis. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, Haziran-Aralık, 43-65.
11. Dumitrescu, E.I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
12. Eberhardt, M. ve Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. MPRA Paper No. 17692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
13. Fan, X., Li, X. ve Yin, J. (2019). Impact of environmental tax on green development: a nonlinear dynamical system analysis. PLoS ONE, 14(9): e0221264.
14. Gül, E. ve İnal, V. (2017). Hava kirliliği ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: zamanla değişen panel nedensellik analizi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 6(2), 70-82.
15. Halmaghi, E. E. (2016). Environmental action programmes of the European Union – programmes supporting the sustainable development strategy of the European Union. De Gruyter Open Scientific Bulletin, XXI, 2(42), 87-90
16. He, P., Ning, J., Yu, Z., Xiong, H., Shen, H. ve Jin, H. (2019). Can environmental tax policy really help to reduce pollutant emissions? an empirical study of a panel ARDL model based on OECD countries and China. Sustainability, 11(16), 4384.
17. Hey, C. (2007). EU environmental policies: a short history of the policy strategies. EU Environmental Policy Handbook.
18. Hu, X., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Meng, J., Wang, X., Yang, H. …Tao, S. (2019). The impact of environmental protection tax on sectoral and spatial distribution of air pollution emissions in China. Environmental Research Letter, 14, 054013.
19. European Environment Agency (2019). The European Environment-State and Outlook 2020.
20. Intosaı Workıng Group On Envıronmental Audıtıng (2016). Market Based Instruments for Environmental Protection and Management. Jakarta, Indonesia.
21. Khan, A., Muhammad, F., Chenggang, Y., Hussani, J., Bano, S. ve Khan, M. A. (2020). The impression of technological innovations and natural resources in energy-growth-environment nexus: a new look into BRICS economies. Science of the Total Environment, 1-11.
22. Kosonen, K. (2012). Regressivity of Environmental Taxation: Myth or Reality?. European Commission Working Paper N.32.
23. Liu, Y., ,Li, R. L., Song, Y. ve Zhang, Z. J. (2019). The role of environmental tax in alleviating the impact of environmental pollution on residents’ happiness in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 4574.
24. Māris, J. ve Jānis, B. (2017). Assessment of the environmental tax system in Latvia. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, X(2), Winter 2017/2018.
25. Miller, S. J. ve Vela, M. A. (2013). Are Environmentally Related Taxes Effective?. Inter-American Development Bank, IDB-WP-467.
26. Morley, B. (2012). Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Environmental Taxes. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), 1817-1820.
27. Nanthakumar, L., Shahbaz, M. ve Taha, R. (2014). The effect of green taxation and economic growth on environment hazards: the case of Malaysia. MPRA Paper No. 56843.
28. Niua, T., Yaoa, X., Shaob, S., Lic, D. ve Wangda, W. (2018). Environmental tax shocks and carbon emissions: an estimated college structural change and economic dynamics DSGE model. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 47, 9-17.
29. OECD (2011). Environmental Taxation A Guide for Policy Makers, September.
30. OECD (2017). Environmental Fiscal Reform Progress, Prospects and Pitfalls.
31. Özdemir, B. (2009). Küresel kirlenme sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyüme ve çevre vergileri. Maliye Dergisi, 156, Ocak-Haziran, 1-36.
32. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA, Bonn, Germany. Discussion Paper No. 1240.
33. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
34. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogenity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
35. Rosiek, J. (2015). The impact of environmental tax policy on sustainable development of the EU economies. DEA Approach 11th International Conference of ASECU September 10-11, Cracow, Poland.
36. Smith, S. (1992). Taxation and the environment: a survey. Fiscal Studies, 13 (4), 21-57.
37. Wang, B., Liu, L., Huang, G.H., Li, W. ve Xie, Y.L. (2018). Effects of carbon and environmental tax on power mix planning – a case study of i
38. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. Journal Of Applied Econometrics, 23, 193-233.
39. Zafar, M.W., Shahbaz, M., Sinha, A., Sengupta, T. ve Qin, Q. (2020). How renewable energy consumption contribute to environmental quality? the role of education in OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 1-12.