Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
Figure 24. GHG emissions, targets and projections

Figure 24. GHG emissions, targets and projections

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

80



OECD Economic Surveys: Luxembourg



more than triple to € 17 million by 2010 (IEA, 2001). As the scale of support is very

different across suppliers, so abatement costs differ significantly and give rise to

significant inefficiencies. For example, the premium paid for electricity from

renewable energy supplied to the national grid varies by a factor of 20,78 resulting

in costs per tonne of saved carbon emissions ranging from € 56 for most sources to

€ 1 200 for photovoltaic electricity.79 Large enterprises have been exempted from

the extra costs of supporting electricity from renewable energy, with the full cost

being passed on as a levy on the price to small consumers.80 At the same time as

reducing national emissions through renewable energy programmes, the government is encouraging the domestic production of electricity from gas. It intends

that 45 per cent of all electricity will be produced domestically by 2005.

Another important strand of climate change policy has been the promotion of energy efficiency. In this context, a voluntary agreement with industry is

officially estimated to have contributed to a 14 per cent decline in energy

intensity over the 1990s against a target of 10 per cent. In addition, investment

subsidies and special depreciation allowances are granted to promote energy

saving investments. The government has also promoted schemes to improve

energy efficiency in homes and commercial premises, where the government has

identified a potential to improve energy efficiency by around 30 per cent. The size

of grants made under these schemes can potentially rise to as much as

€ 28 000 per tonne of carbon abated.81 It is estimated that abatement achieved

through one scheme, the carnet de l’habitat, has cost € 3 700 per tonne of carbon

abated. In contrast to these specific subsidies, the general incentives for energy

conservation in space-heating are weak. For example, in mid-2002, the excise tax

on heating oil was equivalent to just € 7 per tonne of carbon.

In the transport sector, emissions have been rapidly reflecting both the

increase in the number of vehicles, which almost doubled over the 1990s, and vehicle fuel taxes that are lower than in neighbouring countries, generating significant

and rising cross-border sales.82 The government expects that more fuel-efficient

vehicles and the implementation of traffic management policies could contribute to

a 12 per cent decline in emissions from the transport sector by 2010 from the

business-as-usual projection (Ministry of Environment, 2000). Indeed, introducing road

pricing could help mitigate environmental and economic externalities.

A cost-efficient programme for emission reduction should ensure that

abatement costs are equalised throughout the economy. Luxembourg will participate in the EU-wide trading scheme for large emitters to be introduced in 2005

and this will be an efficient instrument. The first stage on implementing this policy

will be the design of a national allocation plan for the available permits. If the

permits are allocated without charge substantial windfall gains will accrue to many

emitters. A levy on newly allocated permits would help both to reduce the extent

of the gain and cover the costs of administering the programme. In any case, the



© OECD 2003



Policies to strengthen growth in national income



81



trading scheme should act as an upper limit on the acceptable abatement costs

elsewhere in the economy, as, at the margin, it is always possible to cover

emission obligation outside the trading sector by purchasing permits from inside

that sector. It may be the most difficult to equalise abatement costs in the transport sector, where the implied taxation of carbon is already well above permit

prices. The taxation of gasoline helps internalise a number of externalities other

than carbon emissions. If part of this taxation were transferred to another instrument, such as road pricing, gasoline taxation could then be lowered towards a

level that aligned investment in fuel saving technology with its benefits.

Conclusion

Current climate change policy is imposing excessive costs on the

economy, and it is important that the development of the climate change strategy

is re-oriented to achieving abatement at least cost. This would require abatement

effort to be concentrated in activities where emissions can be cut at low cost, and

hence the termination of some existing high-cost programmes. The most suitable

instruments for cost-efficient abatement outside the sector subject to trading

would be carbon taxes, such as those proposed in the National Sustainable Development Plan. But even cost-efficient domestic abatement may still involve high

costs, and Luxembourg would stand to gain from participating actively in international emission trading arrangements and using flexible mechanisms.83

Improving living standards in developing countries

Main issues

A reduction in poverty in the non-OECD area will contribute to the

achievement of globally sustainable development. Although developing countries

themselves have the major responsibility to improve their living standards, the

trade and aid policies of OECD countries can help to reduce extreme poverty in

the least developed and other low-income countries. Luxembourg can contribute

to poverty alleviation in the non-OECD area by importing goods and services from

these countries. Bilateral development co-operation is another area where

Luxembourg can enhance the opportunities for developing countries to overcome

obstacles to development and improve living standards.84

Performance

Direct imports to Luxembourg from developing countries, particularly the

least developed countries, are extremely small and predominantly manufactured

goods. While the recent separation of trade statistics for Luxembourg and Belgium

means that longer-term trends are unavailable, imports from the least developed

countries in the 2000-2002 period amounted to only 0.05 per cent of total imports,



© OECD 2003



OECD Economic Surveys: Luxembourg



82



Table 11. Main indicators: trade and development co-operation

A. Trade

Least developed countries



Other low-income countries



Share in total

imports



Composition

of imports:

manufactures

in non-energy

products



Annual

growth rate



Share in total

imports



Composition

of imports:

manufactures

in non-energy

products



Annual

growth rate



20011



20011



1990-20011



20011



20011



1990-20011



Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic



0.2

0.3

1.6

0.1

0.1



70.6

89.5

87.1

79.7

29.3



7.9

13.1

5.7

5.1

10.7



12.6

2.7

4.5

4.8

3.3



88.7

92.0

90.6

93.1

83.3



15.1

9.1

9.9

17.0

39.3



Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece



0.3

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.7



73.3

33.5

59.3

72.3

67.9



0.3

16.6

1.0

4.4

7.0



4.4

4.5

5.4

5.3

5.1



92.6

88.4

87.1

88.7

88.3



10.9

13.7

11.2

10.0

13.4



Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg



0.1

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.1



86.2

34.4

59.2

37.3

45.4

88.7



20.0

5.6

–1.1

–4.7

–2.6



4.2

2.9

4.9

24.6

14.3

0.7



98.7

88.8

84.1

81.4

79.3

57.3



21.7

17.9

9.8

14.0

12.1



Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland



0.0

0.4

0.1

0.4

0.4



72.0

62.0

48.2

86.1

70.9



–2.8

5.9

0.9

–17.5

12.4



0.4

7.7

9.2

4.3

4.9



91.2

82.0

93.8

93.9

81.3



12.0

12.3

19.9

14.4

22.7



Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States



0.5

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5



34.3

82.5

63.1

52.7

78.5

87.3



3.2

7.3

–1.2

0.6

6.8

9.1



5.5

2.7

2.5

5.2

4.7

12.6



79.5

90.9

89.5

83.6

87.9

94.3



13.9

6.8

10.2

14.5

9.6

16.8



1. 2000 for the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand and Turkey.

Source: OECD.



which is one of the lowest rates for the OECD area.85 The share of imports coming

from other low-income countries is also one of the smallest recorded in the OECD

area. In contrast to the weak trade link, Luxembourg has strongly increased its

spending on development co-operation over the past decade from 0.27 per cent of

gross national income (GNI) in 1990-91 and now exceeds the UN recommended

target of 0.7 per cent of GNI (Table 11). With limited resources, a large share of



© OECD 2003



Policies to strengthen growth in national income



Table 11.



83



Main indicators: trade and development co-operation (cont.)

B. Development co-operation

Official development assistance

2001

US$ million



Per cent of GNI



1995-96 to 2000-01

average annual percentage

change in real terms



Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Denmark



873

533

867

1 533

1 634



0.25

0.29

0.37

0.22

1.03



0.6

0.2

3.5

–2.6

4.4



Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland



389

4 198

4 990

202

287



0.32

0.32

0.27

0.17

0.33



5.0

–6.6

–1.2

8.2

11.9



Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand



1 627

9 847

141

3 172

112



0.15

0.23

0.82

0.82

0.25



–2.3

3.0

18.1

5.0

5.6



Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden



1 346

268

1 737

1 666



0.83

0.25

0.30

0.81



1.7

6.7

7.3

4.4



Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States



908

4 579

11 429



0.34

0.32

0.11



3.0

5.8

3.2



Total DAC



52 336



0.22



1.8



Memorandum item:

Average country effort

Source:



0.40



OECD.



this assistance is directed at ten priority countries, leading to a concentration of

resources that is more pronounced than on average for the member countries of the

OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Furthermore, Luxembourg’s

development co-operation profile is strongly orientated to projects in the areas of

health and education.

Policy

Trade policy in Luxembourg is set in the context of policy instruments that

are uniform across the European Union. In 1999, average trade weighted bound

tariffs for industrial goods were slightly higher in the EU than in the US and Japan



© OECD 2003



Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Figure 24. GHG emissions, targets and projections

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×