• Bookstore

The 'audit' covered the main "pollution taxes" of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.  Taking each of these green taxes and charges in turn, the report explores why the TaxPayers' Alliance believe each one has serious flaws.

The report concludes that individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, and are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope.

The 'social cost of CO2 emissions' is the monetary cost to society to reduce emissions to a level that would stop the man-made contribution to global warming and climate change.  A number of reports have been produced that estimate this cost.  The TaxPayers' Alliance takes takes four of these reports and calculates the average cost across these reports.  The four reports are: Nordhaus (2007), IPCC (2007), Tol (2005), Stern (2006).

Based on the CO2 emissions for 2005 (654 million tonnes) the social costs for CO2 are: £2.7 billion (Nordhaus), £4.3 billion (IPCC), £9.1 billion (Tol) and £30.5 billion (Stern). The average of these reports is £11.7 billion. The revenue generated by green taxes for 2005-6 (less spending on roads) was £21.9 billion.  Depending on whether one takes the cost taken by Stern or the other three reports, the actual revenue is either outrageously over-the-top or greatly understated.

The TaxPayers' Alliance, by taking the average, concludes that Britains are being over-taxed.  They also cite others, including Tol, for rejecting Nicholas Stern's estimates for CO2's social cost.

Wayward Targeting
Beyond the actual amount of money that the various taxes raise, the report also investigates who is paying these taxes.  It found that under the Climate Change Levy, the North East, England's poorest region, pays over 35 percent more as a proportion of regional Gross Value Added, than the South East, England's richest region outside London.  The report found that poorer and middle income families pay a larger proportion of their income for motor oil and petrol than higher income families.

Survey Results
The publication of the TaxPayers' Alliance, coincides with the publication of a YouGov survey which highlights a general dissatisfaction with green taxes and distrust of the polititians who impose them.

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 percent agreed with the statement: "Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes."  Only 20 percent thought that "Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people's behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions."

According to the survey, even trebling Air Passenger Duty would not stop people flying, something few polititians would be willing to advocate:
"When asked how much extra air passenger duty would have to cost before they chose not to fly, more than two thirds (71 percent) would only stop flying if Air Passenger Duty was trebled from its current rate. If politicians only doubled it, 81 percent of people would still choose to fly."

The Carrot or the Stick?
There was a very strong view that any new green taxes should not add to the already high tax burden but should be met with reductions in other taxes.  A majority (61 percent) thought that if extra 'green' taxes were raised, "the extra funds should be used to reduce other taxes."

When asked whether, "Generally speaking do you approve or disapprove of additional 'green' taxes on motoring and air travel?", 46 percent disapproved while 45 percent approved and one in four people "strongly disapproved" against less than one in ten who "strongly approved".

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance said:
"The public are right to suspect the motives of politicians.  Not only are they split on whether new green taxes are a good idea, but our research proves that politicians have been using green taxes as a revenue-raising measure and are cynically trying to win support for new ones by exploiting concern about climate change.  We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world."  

Corin Taylor, Research Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance said:
"Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, Northern manufacturers and the NHS. Green taxes in the UK are already well in excess of the level they need to be to meet the academic estimates of the social costs of carbon emissions.  Every household is paying more than £400 extra in tax every year because green taxes are set too high.  UK taxpayers are already more than doing their bit to pay for the costs of pollution and additional green taxes would be completely unjustified."

Treasury Response
Responding on the BBC, a Treasury spokesman said:
"The government's definition of environmental taxes includes those taxes that are designed to primarily have an environmental impact - the climate change levy, aggregates levy and landfill tax.

"We make clear, for example, when setting fuel duty rates that the Government takes into account a range of factors, including costs of motoring such as congestion, and the need to maintain sound public finances.

"It is ridiculous to argue that the government is failing against its environmental objectives. The UK is one of a few countries on course to meet its Kyoto commitments. By 2010 we will have met it almost twice over - cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20%."

A spokesman continued:
"In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."