Co2 Emissions Per Capita Norway
A carbon tax is an environmental tax charged on the carbon content of fuels. Carbon taxes have been in use for close to 20 years (Sumner, 2009). Moreover, they have been applied in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. Thus each carbon tax is designed to meet their needs of the involved stake holder or the implementing jurisdiction. They are also designed with considerations such as the particular sector to be taxed, the setting of the tax rates, utilization of tax revenues the impact on the consumers in addition to the ways of ensuring the emissions reduction goals are achieved (Norway, 2009).
In most cases, carbon taxes are levied on gasoline, coal and natural gas and it has been shown that, there does exist a large difference among tax rates across the various jurisdictions. For instance, Sweden has the highest rates ($105 per metric tons Co2) while the lowest at $0.045per metric ton Co2 is levied in the bay area air quality management district in California.
In Norway, carbon taxation was introduced in 1991(Dawid, 2008). It is levied on fossil fuels and applied on petrol and diesel. Thus, Norway in effect has the most expensive fuel in Europe. Therefore, in essence, the jurisdiction setting the carbon tax rates depends on target outcome. Higher rates can lead to behavior change while lower rates can adequately generate money for other carbon mitigating programs. For instance, some jurisdictions such as Sweden allow industries to pay for a reduced tax rates.
Revenue from carbon taxes can be distributed in various ways such as carbon mitigating programs, returning the funds to the consumers as happens in the UK, British Columbia and France. However, Sweden and Norway use such funds to fund the general government budget (Sessions, 2009). While Finland uses the same in their general government budget accompanied by a cut in the income tax in which case carbon tax revenues get is redirected in to the low-income consumers to enable them to minimize impact
Thus in the final analysis, though carbon taxes are in most cases as the best environmentally efficient in carbon curbing, they may not lead to a set level of emission reduction (Anonymous, 2010). In addition, they are designed to increase if automatically if emission reductions are not met. However, emission reductions that quality for carbon taxes may be hard to determine. With some jurisdictions quantifying the overall emissions reduction while others, prefer to examine impact that results from funds by carbon tax revenues.
In addition, carbon tax policies can also be integrated with other carbon policies to maximize GHG reduction (Demerse,2008).For instance, in Europe, some countries are implementing carbon taxes and are still subject to EU’s emission trading schemes while others like Norway have tax hydrofluoric carbon and fluoro compound that can be directed to address different GHGs emissions.
Thus this research aims to establish the exact impact of carbon taxes in the Norwegian economy.
The research has chosen to apply the quantitative approach that is a simple process of studying and analyzing the situational factors surrounding a problem with a few to finding a solution to it. The hypothesis guiding the research is ‘carbon emissions taxation regimes has had no effect on the Norway economy”
in a quantitative research, reality is objective and singular and apart from the researcher who remains independent or what is being studied, the process is value free and unbiased since theory is largely causal and deductive. The hypothesis which the researcher begins with are tested and concepts are in distinct form as variables with measuring being systematically created before data collection and standardization. This happens because the data is in a precise measurement like numbers with many cases or subjects procedures being standardized and replicas as assumed. Where up on the analysis follows from the use of statistics, tables or charts to discuss how or what each indicates or links hypothesis.
The research applies a quantitative research which is empirical and uses numeric and quantitative data under which conclusions are based on experimentation as well as general objectives and systematic observations with an aim of finding strong evidence for cause and affects relationships by demonstrating that the manipulation of a single variable or the treatment known as the independent variable may produce different outcomes on another variable the dependent variable
In essence an experimental research approach or study involves at least an independent variable which is manipulated or controlled by the researcher through random assignment to different treatment conditions and measurements of some dependent variable once treatments are applied. Here the ensuing different is the dependent variable across the treatment group and is attributable to the different treatment conditions that were applied.
On the other hand, use of non-experimental research unlike the experimental approach employs variables that are not manipulated by the researcher but instead, are studied, as they exist. This approach comes in handy in studying situations where many variables of interest in social science cannot be manipulated due to their attribute variables or characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status, learning styles or any other personal characteristics/ traits that cannot be manipulated. For instance, a researcher cannot randomly place individuals in different groups on the basis of gender or learning styles since such are naturally accruing attributes.
In addition, a non-experimental approach is applied in situations that would otherwise be unethical to randomly assign individuals to different treatment conditions. For instance, a researcher cannot study effect as of smiling by randomly assigning individuals to either a smoking or none smoking group. Instead, the most ethical or reasonable way would be to identify a group of smokers or nonsmokers for a given number of years then compare them for differences in their current state of health. This would then be followed by taking other variables in to account such as how long each of them has been smoking, their ages, their gender and perceived general health.
This would very crucial in that, the researcher cannot take for granted that individuals or groups are comparable in all their aspects other than their smoking behavior.
Thus in a non experimental research, groups based on different traits or on self selection like being a smoker may vary due to several other variables under investigations . Thus, the approach may call for other potential or alternative explanations to jointly analyze several other individual variables to be able to present conclusions without making definitive causal statements. Thus, this study would accordingly adopt an experimental approach. …………………..
Data on carbon emissions on Norway
Under the Garnaut climate change review, Norway is refuted to be the only developed country with fossil fuels that has in place carbon emission taxezation measures that are comparable to the pace setting Australia whereby, Norway’s emissions per person stand at 10.9 tons compared to Australia’s 27.3 tones per person( Anonymous, 2008). However, Norway has been pricing its carbon emissions since 1991. In addition, the Norwegian carbon taxes are among the highest in the world.
For instance, in 1999 the total Norwegian GHG emissions amounted to 56.o metric tons for Co2 representing a 1% increase to the 1990 levels and by 2008- 12, emissions of Co2, Ch4 and N2o measured in GWP increased by 15,5% from 1990 to 1999 while the emissions of Co2 the most dominant GHG was up 19% to 412.7 million tons in 1999 as shown by the figure below…
Table 2. Changes in emissions from 1990 to 1999 and the contribution from each component.
Components CO2 CH4 N2O Weighted
Population 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Scale 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4
Composition of sectors 2.9 -0.7 -17.7 0.1
Energy intensity -10.7 -1.3 -0.6 -8.2
Energy mix -3.3 0.3 0.3 -2.4
Other technique, energy 0.0 -0.1 6.1 0.7
Material intensity -1.2 -2.2 -3.8 -1.6
Other technique, process -4.5 -23.3 -17.0 -8.5
Total change 18.7 8.2 2.8 15.5
Total is weighted by GWP: CO2= 1, CH4=21, N2O= 310
All these emissions occurred in spite of Norway having in place an active climate policy that involves taxes, and treatment of methane from landfills( Bruvoll, n.d)However, recent studies show GHG emissions per unit GDP was reduced by 20% over these years.
Norway introduced carbon taxes in 1991 and set it at US$65 per ton. However, the labor government dropped fuel off the carbon tax list pushing the burden of emission reduction to a smaller number of industries with some exemptions for fishing, air and ocean transport, manufacture of cement , leca and land based on use of gas, manufacture of pulp and paper as well as herring flour all which face half carbon taxation.
So what has the carbon tax regime done for the Norwegian Co2 emissions over the two decades in place? Well in the overall, a Co2 emission has gone up in Norway by 15% per capita (Denier, 2011). Thus, in effect, Norway is an example of where despite the introduction of carbon taxes, they have not changed the behavior nor has it dropped the production of Co2. For instance Norway does not have to worry about carbon tax on electricity as 98% of it power comes from hydro.
Never the less, carbon taxes in Norway bout 64% of Co2 emissions in the country where on average, the carbon tax is 18% per ton (Metcalf, 2009). This compares well to the Hagen and Holtsmark 2001 free international competition in the permanent market that is as low as US $5 per ton of Co2.
Thus, in conclusion, a carbon taxation regime in Norway has had no profound effect on the country’s economy.
Anonymous, 2008, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Draft Report, viewed 20 October 2011, < http://www.cleanglobe.org/pdf/02.pdf>.
Anonymous, 2010, Carbon taxes, viewed 20 October 2011, < http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/responses/economic/carbontax.htm>.
Bruvoll, A and Larsen, B, (n.d),Greenhouse gas emissions-do Carbon Taxes Work?, viewed 20 October 2011,< http://weber.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/632.pdf>.
Dawid, I, 2008, Carbon Tax A Norwegian Case Study Since 1991, viewed 20October 2011, < http://www.planetizen.com/node/35318>.
Demerse,C,2008,Choosing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Policies in Canada, viewed 20October 2011,< http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=In%2BNorway%2Bcarbon%2Btax%2Bpolicies%2Bcan%2Balso%2Bbe%2Bintegrated%2Bwith%2Bother%2Bcarbon%2Bpolicies%2Bto%2Bmaximize%2BGHG%2Breduction&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CEoQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpubs.pembina.org%2Freports%2Fpembina-td-final.pdf&ei=6V-hTtKFNonJrQfJzZGIAw&usg=AFQjCNEmoxtMTcxnkurbGHethBEhXOWAEw>.
Denier, C, 2011, Norway an example of a carbon tax that does not work, viewed 20 October 2011, < http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/carbon-tax/norway-an-example-of-a-carbon-tax-that-does-not-work/>.
Sessions, S, 2009, Caborn Finance in Africa –Extract: Description on proposal on revenue raising, viewed 20October 2011,< http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/46/43574330.pdf>.
Sumner, J, et al, 2009, Experience and policy Design Considerations, viewed 20 October 2011, < http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47312.pdf>.
Metcalf,G,2009,The Design of a Carbon Tax, viewed 20 October 2011,< http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Metcalf%20Weisbach.pdf>.
Norway, S, 2009, Lower Emissions from municipalities in 2009, viewed 20 October 2011, < http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/01/04/10/klimagassr_en/>.