Ecological tax in Norway has proved its effectiveness
Last reviewed: 23.04.2024
All iLive content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure as much factual accuracy as possible.
We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to reputable media sites, academic research institutions and, whenever possible, medically peer reviewed studies. Note that the numbers in parentheses ([1], [2], etc.) are clickable links to these studies.
If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
Most Norwegians are ready to accept an increase in environmental tax if the amount of tax is justified, and the proceeds will be used for specific environmental protection purposes. The society wants to know exactly where taxes go and how it helps to maintain normal ecology.
Politicians and economists try to avoid identifying in advance the purpose of taxes and duties, since this limits the possibility of a further redistribution of the budget in the long term.
"But, nevertheless, politicians should think about targeted taxation, because in this case it will be much easier for the population to reach a consensus with the society," says Steffen Kallbekken, director of the International Center for Ecology in the Norwegian capital Oslo.
"In the course of the nationwide survey, we found out that the majority of Norwegians initially supported the reduction of the fuel tax. But when we told the respondents that the fuel tax would be focused on specific environmental goals, the majority changed their mind and stated that they are ready to support the increase of this tax. Politicians would not be bothered to take note of this information. "
In addition, the researchers found that Norwegians are less skeptical than residents of other countries, refer to environmental taxes and trust the authorities in this area.
Also Kallbekken with his team found out that in order to form a positive attitude towards certain types of taxes, people need to experience their results on their own experience. For example, in the Swedish capital of Stockholm, people initially were mostly negative about the city's traffic tax at rush hour, but a few months after the implementation of the tax on an experimental basis, people assessed the reduction of noise, pollution and the number of accidents. As a result, in the subsequent referendum, the majority supported the introduction of a corresponding tax on an ongoing basis.
On the basis of his research, Steffen Kallbeken made the following main conclusions:
- the purposeful purpose of taxes, the determination of specific purposes for the use of proceeds, has a great influence on the acceptance by the company of these taxes;
- often people start to take better care of individual targeted taxes after feeling their positive effect on their own experience.
[1],