پیامدهای اقتصادی و زیست محیطی مالیات بر آلودگی

محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

رضا مقدسی ¹ (دانشیار اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران)
فرزانه طاهری ² (دانشجوی دکترا اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/09/25 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/09/25 تاریخ انتشار : 1391/10/01

کلید واژه: ایران, محیط زیست, مالیات آلودگی, تعادل عمومی,

چکیده مقاله :

از جمله سیاست‌هایی که به‌منظور حفاظت از محیط زیست در حوزه‌ی اقتصاد مورد توجه قرار گرفته است، مالیات بر آلودگی می‌باشد. در همین راستا این مطالعه با هدف تحلیل آثار اقتصادی و زیست محیطی دریافت مالیات بر آلودگی ناشی از سوخت و فرآیند تولید در ایران انجام شد. برای این منظور الگوی تعادل عمومی مبتنی بر ماتریس حسابداری اجتماعی 1378 و داده‌های مربوط به سطح انتشار آلاینده‌های منتخب سال 1388 مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. آلاینده‌های منتخب شامل دی‌اکسیدکربن، متان، اکسیددی‌نتیروژن، مونوکسیدکربن، اکسیدنیتروژن و دی‌اکسیدسولفور می‌باشد. مقدار مالیات معادل با زیان آلودگی برآورد شده بانک جهانی(2004) در نظر گرفته شد. یافته‌های مطالعه نشان داد که دریافت مالیات بر آلودگی ناشی از سوخت و تولید موجب افزایش سطح تولید خدمات و برخی از بخش‌های کشاورزی می‌گردد؛ درحالی‌که تولید در بخش‌های صنعتی و انرژی کاهش می‌یابد. همچنین مشخص گردید که در بالاترین سطح، دریافت مالیات بر آلودگی از آلاینده‌های منتشر شده از مصرف سوخت و تولید، تولید ناخالص داخلی را کمتر از 5/1 درصد و مصرف خانوارها را حدود 5/2 درصد کاهش می‌دهد. درحالی‌که انتشار آلاینده‌ها 3/3-5/2 درصد کاهش می‌یابد.  

چکیده انگلیسی:

Emission tax is of environment protecting policies in economy context. This study also was conducted while aiming at investigating economic and environmental impacts of emission taxation levied on pollutants emitted from fuel and production process in Iran. To get the objective a computable general equilibrium framework based on the Iranian social accounting matrix of 1999 as well as emission data for 2009 was used. The considered pollutants are CO2, CH4, N2O, CO, NOx and SO2. The pollutants also were taxed based on World Bank (2004) damage cost. The results showed that levying a tax on fuel and production emitted pollutants leads to output expansion in services and some of agricultural sectors while it makes industrial and energy sectors output to fall. It was also found that in the highest taxation level, levying fuel and production based pollution results in reduction of GDP and households consumption by less than 1.5% and 2.5% respectively while it entails pollutants emission reduction by 2.5-3.5%.  

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Adkins, L. G., and Garbaccio, R. F. (2007). Coordinating Global

Trade and Environmental Policy: The role of pre-existing

distortions. National Center for Environmental Economics U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. United

States.

2. Beghin, J., Dessus, S., Ronald-Holst, D., and Mensbrugghe, V. D.

(2002). Empirical Modeling of Trade and Environment. Trade

and Environment in General Equilibrium: Evidence from

Developing Economics, Chapter 3: 31-78.

3. Bjertnæs, G. H. and Fæhn, T. (2008). Energy taxation in a small,

open economy: Social efficiency gains versus industrial concerns.

Energy Economics, 30: 2050–2071.

4. Bohringer, C., and Loschel, A. (2006). Computable general

equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status

quo and prospects. Ecological Economics, 60, 49–64.

5. Bureau, B. (2011). Distributional effects of a carbon tax on car

fuels in France. Energy Economics, 33; 121–130.

6. Carraro, C., Siniscalco, D. (1993). Strategies for the international

protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics, 52,

309–328.

7. Central Bank of Iran (1999). Iranian Social Accounting Matrix of

1999. < http://www.cbi.ir/simplelist/5728.aspx>.

8. Dessus, S., and Bussolo, M. (1998). Is there a trade-off between

trade liberalization and pollution abatement?. Journal of Policy

Modeling, 20(1), 11-31.

9. Devarajan, S. (1988). Natural resources and taxation in

computable general equilibrium models of developing countries.

Journal of Policy Modeling, 10(4), 505–528.

10. Devarajan, S., & Hossain, S. I. (1998). The combined incidence

of taxes and public expenditures in the Philippines.World

Development, 26(6), 963–977.

11. Dissou, Y. and Eyland, T. (2011). Carbon control policies,

competitiveness, and border tax adjustments. Energy Economics,

33: 556–564.

12. Fæhn, T., and Holmøy, E. (2003). Trade liberalization and effects

on pollutive emissions to air and deposits of solid waste. A 

general equilibrium assessment for Norway. Economic Modeling,

20, 703-727.

13. FAO Statistical Database (2008) http://www.fao.org.

14. Farajzadeh, Z. (2012). Envronmental and welfare impacts of trade

energy policy reforms in Iran. Ph.D thesis. Shiraz University.

Shiraz.

15. Gooroochurn, N., & Milner, C. (2005). Assessing indirect tax

reform in a tourism-dependent developing country. World

Development, 33(7), 1183–1200.

16. Iran’s Energy Balance (2009). Deputy of Electricity and Energy

Affairs, Ministry of Energy, Tehran. < http://pep.moe.org.ir>.

17. Iranian Ministry of Agriculture (2008). Cost Statistical Yearbook.

< http://dbagri.maj.ir/cost/>.

18. Jensen, J., and Tarr, T. (2003). Trade, exchange rate, and energy

pricing reform in Iran: Potentially large efficiency effects and

gains to the poor. Review of Development Economics, 7(4), 543–

562.

19. Kerkhof, A. C., Nonhebel, S., Moll, H. C., 2009. Relating the

environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures:

An input- output analysis. Ecological Economics 68, 1160-1170.

20. Kumbaro ˘glu, S. G. (2003). Environmental taxation and

economic effects: A computable general equilibrium analysis for

Turkey. Journal of Policy Modeling, 25(8), 795–810.

21. Liang, Q.M., Fan, Y. and Wei, Y.M. (2007). Carbon taxation

policy in China: How to protect energy- and trade-intensive

sectors?. Journal of Policy Modeling 29, 311–333.

22. Lofgren, H. (1999). Exercises in general equilibrium modeling

Using GAMS. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Washington, D. C. United States.

23. McDonald, S., Thierfelder, K., and Robinson, S. (2007). Globe: A

SAM based global CGE model using GTAP Data. Available at

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/usnusnawp/14.htm.

24. Moghimi, M., Shahnooshi-Forooshani, N., Danesh, S., AkbariMoghaddam,

B. and Daneshvar, M. (2011). Investigating welfare

and environmental impacts of green tax and energy subsidy

reduction using computable general equilibrium. Agricultural

Economics and Development, 75: 79-108. 

25. Strutt, A., and Anderson, K. (1999). Estimating environmental

effects of trade agreements with global age models: A GTAP

application to Indonesia. CIES Discussion Paper No. 99/26.

Centre for International Economic Studies.

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies.

26. Toh, M. H., & Lin, Q. (2005). An evaluation of the 1994 tax

reform in China using a general equilibrium model. China

Economic Review, 16(3), 246–270.

27. UN Statistical Databases. (2008). http://data.un.org

28. United Nations Development Program, 2010. Department of

Environment. Iran second National Communication to United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

National Climate Change Office, Department of Environment.

Tehran.

29. van der Mensbrugghe, D., Roland-Holst, D., Dessus, S. and

Beghin, J. (1998). The interface between growth, trade, pollution

and natural resource use in Chile: evidence from an economy

wide model. Agricultural Economics, 19: 87-97.

30. Wissema, W. (2007). Carbon energy taxation and revenue

recycling An applied general equilibrium analysis for the Irish

economy: AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on

the Irish economy. PhD thesis, Dublin University, Trinity College

Dublin

31. Wissema, W. and Dellink, R. (2007). AGE analysis of the impact

of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy. Ecological

Economics, 61: 671-683.

32. World Bank (2004). Islamic Republic of Iran energy-environment

review policy note. Report No. 29062-IR. Washington D.C.

33. Yilmaz, K. (1999). Optimal export taxes in a multi-country

framework. Journal of Development Economics, 60(2), 439–465