ECONOMIC GROWTH
At the initial period, two countries (Country A & Country B) have identical GDPs of 20.000 EUR and identical natural resource stocks of 10.000 tons. They decide to invest in different technologies:
Country A chooses a technology leading to a yearly GDP growth rate of 2%, and a yearly use of natural resources represented by a negative growth rate of 0.2% p.a. related to the resource stock. Country B decides to extract natural resources instead of investing in a new technology. As a result, GDP of Country B grows initially at 10% per year, and at 0% after 5 years. Country B has a resource use rate that leads to a negative growth rate of 20% per year for the resource stock.
After 12 years, which country has the higher GDP?
Based on the information provided, do you think the developments of the countries are sustainable? Define the concept of sustainability and defend your argument whether their growth is sustainable using concepts discussed in class.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Country A has a more sustainable development than country B. After 12 years, country A still has many resources, while country B has almost used up all resources.
Investing in new technologies helps the country's sustainability. Technology can help to use resources more efficiently and waste less, so that more growth can be generated with less resources.
The GDP of country B does not grow so much, but it is sustainable. The GDP of country B grows very quickly at the beginning and then stops growing, which is not sustainable ⟶ future generations are going to have a problem.
Nachhaltige Entwicklung ist eine Entwicklung, die die Bedürfnisse der Gegenwart befriedigt, ohne die Fähigkeit künftiger Generationen zu gefährden, ihre eigenen Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen.
Land A hat eine nachhaltigere Entwicklung als Land B. Nach 12 Jahren verfügt Land A noch über viele Ressourcen, während Land B fast alle Ressourcen aufgebraucht hat.
Investitionen in neue Technologien tragen zur Nachhaltigkeit des Landes bei. Technologie kann helfen, Ressourcen effizienter zu nutzen und weniger zu verschwenden, so dass mehr Wachstum mit weniger Ressourcen erzeugt werden kann.
Das BIP von Land B wächst nicht so stark, aber es ist nachhaltig. Das BIP von Land B wächst am Anfang sehr schnell und hört dann auf zu wachsen, was nicht nachhaltig ist ⟶ zukünftige Generationen werden ein Problem haben.
After 12 years, which country has the highest natural resource stock?
How can the discount rate help explain the country's choice to invest in a given technology or harvest more or less of a resource?
The discount rate reflects how much future benefits are worth today and influences investment and resource management decisions.
With a high discount rate, the value of future returns from technological innovation is estimated to be lower. as a result, countries are less likely to invest in new technologies because the expected long-term benefits are not sufficiently weighted.
A high discount rate could lead countries to extract resources quicker in order to get short-term economic benefits without paying enough attention to sustainability.
A low discount rate helps to promote sustainability, because it is based on long-term thinking.
Der Abzinsungssatz spiegelt wider, wie viel künftige Vorteile heute wert sind, und beeinflusst Investitions- und Ressourcenmanagemententscheidungen.
Bei einem hohen Abzinsungssatz wird der Wert künftiger Erträge aus technologischen Innovationen geringer eingeschätzt. Infolgedessen ist es weniger wahrscheinlich, dass Länder in neue Technologien investieren, da die erwarteten langfristigen Vorteile nicht ausreichend gewichtet werden.
Ein hoher Abzinsungssatz könnte Länder dazu verleiten, Ressourcen schneller abzubauen, um kurzfristige wirtschaftliche Vorteile zu erzielen, ohne der Nachhaltigkeit genügend Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Ein niedriger Zinssatz fördert nachhaltigkeit, da langfristig gedacht wird.
Sustainable development
The graphs below represent the wealth of two different European countries: Norway and Romania. You can see Net National Income (taken from Eurostat) and Adjusted Net national income (taken from the World Bank) for these countries. Here is an explanation of these indicators:
"Net national income is defined as [total value of all goods and services produced by a country] minus the depreciation of fixed capital assets (e.g. buildings, machinery)" Source: OECD Data
"Adjusted net national income is gross national income minus consumption of fixed capital and natural resources depletion." Natural resources depletion includes net forest depletion, energy depletion, and mineral depletion. Source: World Bank
Elaborate on the wealth of Norway and Romania and how it changed over time. Compare the two countries. In your opinion, discuss how one should measure wealth in a country.
Compared to Romania, Norway has shown higher economic growth in both indicators in recent years.
Norway initially had a net national income that was below the adjusted net national income, which means that the country consumed and extracted less than it produced. This gap widened between 2007 and 2014 in particular. As you want to operate more sustainably and not consume more than you produce, the adjusted NNE falls to the level of the ANE, which means that you consume and extract more.
In Romania, the opposite is the case. Throughout the period, the NNI has been above the ANE, meaning that they are consuming and using more than they are producing, with the gap widening since 2008. Romania is becoming less sustainable.
ANE better indicator than NNE
Measuring prosperity by goods and services produced is good for getting a quick overview of a country's prosperity. It is also an indicator of a country's life expectancy.
However, it does not take into account factors such as inequality, wealth distribution and general welfare of the country, which are also an important part of a country's prosperity and well-being.
To determine prosperity, you need to look at more than one indicator to get an overall picture.
Im Vergleich zu Rumänien wies Norwegen in den letzten Jahren bei beiden Indikatoren ein höheres Wirtschaftswachstum auf.
Norwegen hatte zu Beginn ein Nettonationaleinkommen, das unter dem adjustierten Nettonationaleinkommen lag, was bedeutet, dass das Land weniger verbrauchte und abbaute, als es produzierte. Vor allem zwischen 2007 und 2014 wurde diese Lücke immer größer. Da man nachhaltiger wirtschaften und nicht mehr verbrauchen will, als man produziert, sinkt das bereinigte NNE auf das Niveau des NNE, was bedeutet, dass man mehr verbraucht und abbaut.
In Rumänien ist das Gegenteil der Fall. Während des gesamten Zeitraums lag der NNI über dem bereinigten NNI, was bedeutet, dass sie mehr verbrauchen und verbrauchen als sie produzieren, wobei sich der Abstand seit 2008 vergrößert hat. Rumänien wird immer weniger nachhaltig.
Die Messung des Wohlstands anhand der produzierten Waren und Dienstleistungen ist gut geeignet, um einen schnellen Überblick über den Wohlstand eines Landes zu erhalten. Es ist auch ein Indikator für die Lebenserwartung eines Landes.
Sie berücksichtigt jedoch keine Faktoren wie Ungleichheit, Wohlstandsverteilung und allgemeine Wohlfahrt des Landes, die ebenfalls ein wichtiger Bestandteil des Wohlstands und des Wohlbefindens eines Landes sind.
Um den Wohlstand zu bestimmen, muss man mehr als einen Indikator betrachten, um ein Gesamtbild zu erhalten.
OPTIMAL LEVEL OF FISHING
Let us consider the management options for fisheries in an industrialized country. Assumte than a fishery sector has a demand for fish (benefits) and a cost of fishing (costs). Their costs can be represented by:
And their benefits are represented by:
Where F represents the fish harvested by the fishery sector.
2.1. How much fish will the sector decide to harvest from the ocean?
2.2 Suppose that a neighbouring industry is negatively affected if the fisheries sector decides to harvest fish at the optimal (profit maximizing) level. Their damage function can be described as:
In other words, the costs of fish harvesting do not represent all the costs for society. In this context, fishing represents which market failure?
2.3. Calculate the socially optimal level of fishing.
2.4. After negotiating, an international convention deems that it is the neighbouring industry that has the property rights to a stable fish stock with zero harvest. Therefore, the fishing industry has to compensate the neighbouring industry for their losses if they decide to harvest at the level that maximizes their profit. Determine the minimum compensation demanded by the neighbouring industry.
2.5. What is the maximum compensation the fishing industry would be willing to pay to harvest at the level that maximizes their individual profit as compared to no harvest at all?
2.6. Compare your answers in 2.4 and 2.5. Are the industries going to agree on a level of compensation? If yes, what would you predict this level to be? If no, what could be solutions to this problem?
2.1
2.2
Because fishing has a negative impact on the neighboring industrial sector, it is an external effect that leads to market failure. Social costs are not taken into account in the private optimum.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
Because the compensation the fishery is willing to pay is higher than the minimum compensation demanded by the neighboring industry, they will come to an agreement
Agreement between 12.100 Euro and 60.500 Euro ⟶ exact level depends on the trade-off
2 Types of liability rules
Strict liability: If an accident occurs, the injuring party pays the comparison to the victim
Negligence liability: If an accident occurs, the injured pays full comparison to the victim only if the injurer were not, prior to the accident, undertaken the efficient level of precautions.
If this is the case, the injuring is not required to pay any compensation.
(Kommt es zu einem Unfall, zahlt der Verursacher dem Geschädigten nur dann vollen Schadenersatz, wenn der Schädiger vor dem Unfall keine wirksamen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen getroffen hat. Ist dies der Fall, muss der Schädiger keinen Schadenersatz zahlen.)
Strict liability
If an accident occurs, the injuring party pays the comparison to the victim
Negligence liability
If an accident occurs, the injured pays full comparison to the victim only if the injurer were not, prior to the accident, undertaken the efficient level of precautions. If this is the case, the injuring is not required to pay any compensation.
Kommt es zu einem Unfall, zahlt der Verursacher dem Geschädigten nur dann vollen Schadenersatz, wenn der Schädiger vor dem Unfall keine wirksamen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen getroffen hat. Ist dies der Fall, muss der Schädiger keinen Schadenersatz zahlen.
POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Consider the following newspaper excerpt:
"A group of 18 California children - ranging in ages from 8 to 17 - has filed a new constitutional climate case in federal court against the US Environmental Protection Agency, alleging it has harmed children's health and welfare over decades.
"The case, Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, alleges the EPA "intentionally allows" planet warming pollution to come from the sources it regulates, such as vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, power plants, and oil and gas wells. It follows the first constitutional climate case in the US, which youth plaintiffs successfully tried in Montana earlier this year.
"The case further alleges the agency allows this pollution "despite knowing the harm it causes to children's health and welfare." The case was filed Sunday night in US District Court in the Central District of California. (...)
"The foundation of this youth climate case goes far beyond the Biden administration. The plaintiffs allege that since the EPA was created five decades ago, it has let the US become one of the world's biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution, despite knowing this pollution would harm children.
"In statements, youth plaintiffs talked about how climate-fuelled wildfires, extreme heat and floods have directly impacted their lives. (...)"
To which kind of environmental policy instrument does this story connect? Argue why that is the case.
Liability is required! (Children demand liability)
It connects to command and control instruments & incentives. The children argee that the EPA did not have strict enough regulations, such as emission limits or a cop on resource use, that would have slowed down the pollution and not caused the harm to the childrens healtn and welbeing. Also with incentive the EPA could have regulated the pollution by putting taxes on emission or giviry subsidies for abating pollution.
They didn't take enough precautionamy action.
The agency (EPA) is being sued because it allowed for climate change to happen. To mitigate climate change, EPA could have taken precautionary action, denoted by X. Suppose that the cost of taking precautionary action is C (X) = X² + 2X. The benefits are mitigating climate change, described by B (X) = 3X².
What is the optimal level of precautionary action?
Assume that EPA can prove that it undertook the socially optimal level of precautionary action. Under negligence liability, does EPA have to pay to the group of Californian children? Why?
NOT PAY
If EPA can prove they achieved the socially optimal level of precaution, then the EPA doesn't have to pay, since under Negligence liabilty the one causing harm only has to pay if they didn't take enough precautionany action.
Assume again that EPA can prove that it undertook the socially optimal level of precautionary action. Under strict liability, does EPA have to pay to the group of Californian children? Why?
If an accident occurs, the injuring party pays the comparison to the victim.
PAY
Under strict liability the one causing the harm always has to compensate the one harmed. So the EPA would have to pay, even though they can prove the precautionary action was efficient
In fact, EPA is just one of many agencies that regulates pollution (including GHG emissions).
Discuss what could be the global implications for firms in general if EPA is forced to compensate the group of Californian children in court.
If the children win, this would open up the possibility for everyone else to sue companies or authorities that cause pollution. This would mean that each company would potentially have to pay damages to the injured party, which could mean economic disaster for many companies.
If the children win, many companies would probably try to limit pollution and increase their precautionary measures so that they cannot be held liable in court.
This would be very good for the environment because it would give companies an incentive to pollute less.Companies need to get a handle on the abatement costs. But companies need to have a handle on the avoidance costs.
Two fishing cooperatives (A and B) are asked whether they would like to participate financially in the construction of a public lighthouse. The construction of the lighthouse would cost €250,000. Each fishing cooperative would have to contribute half of the costs. The benefit of the lighthouse for each cooperative is €150,000. The lighthouse will only be built if the costs are covered. If the costs for the lighthouse are not covered, the amount paid will be invested in a smaller project. In that case, the benefit of the smaller project for each cooperative is € 62500.
Create the payoff matrix for this game based on the net benefit of both cooperatives.
What are the strategies of both cooperatives?
Where is the Nash equilibrium? Is the equilibrium pareto-optimal?
dominant stategy for both is to not contibute, because this is associated with the least loss
Nash equilibrium : 0/0 (not c/ not c)if both choose the dominant strategy. It makes no sense for just one of the two to change strategy (to pay), because this would mean a loss for the cooperative and a win for the other.
Pareto optimum: 25,000/25,000 (c/c), because one of them can't make a profit without the other being worse off.
According to economic theory, what problem leads to an under provision of a public good in a competitive market? Explain why.
public goods are non-excludabe & have no rivalry in use that means nobody has the property rights.
becaus everyone can use the public good and has access the Problem of free-riding, meaning people profit from it without helping invest in it.
WPT = 0
Underprovision, because there are still costs that no one pays
What is the difference between the Polluter-pays and laissez-faire principle?
The polluter pays principle means that those who make the pollution should also pay the costs of cleaning it up. (What is the maximum compensation the polluter would be willing to pay, as well as the minimum compensation demanded by the Victims?) —> vergleich social optimum with zero
Laissez-faire system: the victim pays money to the polluter so that the polluter minimizes its production (What is the maximum compensation the Victims would be willing to pay, and as well as the minimum compensation demanded by the Victims?) —> vergleich social optimum with privat optimum
Laissez-faire principle
Wie hoch ist die maximale Entschädigung, die die Geschädigten zu zahlen bereit wären, und wie hoch ist die von den Geschädigten geforderte Mindestentschädigung?
Polluter-pays
The polluter pays principle means that those who make the pollution should also pay the costs of cleaning it up. (What is the maximum compensation the polluter would be willing to pay, as well as the minimum compensation demanded by the Sufferers?) —> vergleich social optimum with zero
Das polluter pays principle besagt, dass diejenigen, die die Umweltverschmutzung verursachen, auch die Kosten für die Beseitigung der Verschmutzung tragen sollten.
Verursacherprinzip: Wie hoch ist die maximale Entschädigung, die der Verursacher zu zahlen bereit wäre, und wie hoch ist die minimale Entschädigung, die von den Leidtragenden gefordert wird?
A chemical firm is located next to a river. The profit function of the chemical firm depends on the number of chemicals produced (x):
The production of x causes water pollution, which influences a fishery that is located 5 km downstream. The profit function of the fishery depends on the fish harvest (y) and the number of chemicals (x):
a. What will be the maximum profit for the chemical firm? And, given the pollution produced by the chemical firm, what will be the maximum profit for the fishery?
b. Can the profit-maximizing production of the chemical firm and the fishery be characterized Pareto efficient? Explain
c. What are the implications of the Coase theorem in this case?
d. Suppose that the firms decide to co-operate. This means that they now maximize their joint profits. What will now be the production of the chemical firm?
e. The owner of the fishery offers the chemical firm e100 if the chemical firm would produce the social optimal amount. Is this offer attractive for the chemical firm?
f. What would be the profit of the fishery if the chemical firm
would accept the offer? Would the “deal” thus be beneficial for
both?
b. To determine wether the profit maximizing production levels of the chemical firm and the fishery are Pareto efficient we need to analyze wether there is a way to reallocate production levels such that at least on firm is better off without making the firm worse off.
Because the chemical firm produces x=12 in its private maximization which is higher than the socially optimal level x=4 the outcome is not Pareto efficient.
198 / 5.000
If the chemical company reduces its production, the fishermen's production can increase. The chemical company could be compensated for its loss. This would be a Pareto improvement.
the original profit maximizing production level of x=12,y=50 are not Pareto efficient, because there exists a allocation x=4,y=50 with appropriate transfer where both firms can be made better off.
c. ???
A steel mill is located upstream of a river, produces steel with byproduct emission E, and has a profit function:
whereas the profit function of the fishery downstream is
a. What is the privately optimal emision E* of the steel factory and the socially optimal emissions E** ?
b. Both parties engage in negotiations regarding the transition from the privately optimal emission to the socially optimal emissions
Laissez-faire (no interfering): What is the maximum compensation the fishery would be willing to pay, and as well as the minimum compensation demanded by the fishery factory
Polluter-Pays Principle: What is the maximum compensation the steel factory would be willing to pay, as well as the minimum compensation demanded by the fisher?
Beauty and destruction: The Amazon rainforest - in pictures
The Amazon rainforest is the world’s largest, but in the last 40 years at least 20 % of it has been destroyed. The Amazon basin covers nine countries in South America, with 60 % of it in Brazil, and for a decade local photographer Rodrigo Baleia has documented the beauty and destruction of the region from above
Assume an industrialized country negotiates with a developing country regarding the protection of rainforest
The utility of the preserved rainforest for the industrialized country is:
*where Q denotes the area of rainforest
The rainforest is an economic resource to the developing country and the preservation is associated with opportunity costs
a. Calculate the marginal utility and marginal costs of rainforest protection
b. Calculate optimal area of rainforest
c. The developing country holds the property rights of the rainforest
What are the opportunity costs for the developing country if both countries agree on the optimal area of rainforest
What is the utility gain for the developed country compared to the situation in which the rainforest is depleted
What is the excess between utility gain of the industrialized country and the opportunity costs of the developing country?
Assume the industrialized country aims for the optimal area and reimburses the developing country for its opportunity costs and pays a transfer of 50% of the net welfare gain ! What is the net welfare of both countries?
d. Assume that more than one industrialized country gains utility from the preservation of rainforest. The property rights are held by the developing country. Discuss the associated problems of the utilization of the Coase-Theorem
d. If more than one industrialized country is involved, the transaction costs increase.
Also, the 'freerider' problem arises
Liability
Consider a firm that is handling liquids that harm the
environment. To ensure that no harm is done, the firm can take
precautionary action Q at costs Q². The benefit of precaution is
described by 2Q.
What is the optimal level, Q*?
Assume the firm undertakes Q* and an accident happens such that harm is done to the environment. Under negligence liability, what does the firm have to pay?
C(Q) = Q². ⟶ MC(Q) = 2Q
B(Q) = 2Q ⟶ MB(Q) = 2
MC(Q) = MB(Q)
2Q = 2 /:2
Q* = 1
Negligence liabilty the one causing harm only has to pay if they didn't take enough precautionany action.
if the firm choose Q<1 it will have to fully compensate for the damage. if the firm choose Q=1 it does not have to pay for environment in case of an accident.
Assume a producer A is able to reduce the caused environmental damage by activities of precaution x (e.g. by reducing the production level).
This activity implies costs Cₐ(x) of:
The expected environmental damage is given with:
Interpret the properties of both the cost function and the function of expected environmental damage.
Precautious activities (x > 0) yield positive costs of precaution. They increase with increasing level of precaution and constant or increasing marginal costs. Increasing marginal costs imply, that an additional unit of precautious activity will be higher, the higher the initial level of precaution is.
Imagine that a firm has revenue function 1000∙𝑄 where Q is the production level, andmthe cost function being
5∙Q²The production of Q also creates pollution that has a socialm cost function
20∙Q
a. What is the private and social optimal of production?
b. What is the optimal tax level?
c. What will be the production level if tax was levied at 10 per unit of production?
Lying about costs
Understanding and overstanting sequence
Solution
Understanding sequence
less permits issued
less tax
overstanting sequence
higher substitute rates
more permanent
Solution: incentives so that companies do not lie
e.g. sales promotion
What are different external effects on and from environmental goods and services.
Who is likely to benefit, and who is likely to suffer?
Are many or few people impacted, are the gains and losses small or large?
Negative externalities:
Pollution
Biodiversity loss
Global Warming
Overuse of resources
Positive externalities
air and water purification, plant pollination, and carbon sequestration
Relaxation value: Nature conservation areas offer recreational opportunities for the population, which increases well-being.
the developing and emerging countries and the industrialized countries are proving to be suffering from the climate change.
The number of people who benefit is much lower than the number of people who suffer the consequences
in the short term there are some winners, in the long term only losers
What policy instruments can be used to reduce the pollution of rivers/water?
Policy instruments:
command and control instruments
bans and prohibition on sorten promissons
technologie requirements
emissions license
lokation kontrolls
subsidies for using green Technologies and inovation
libility rouls as an insentiv to undertake precedes action
pollution tax
Collect examples for pollution and how they impact humans.
air pollution
water pollution
soil pollution
noise pollution
light pollution
economic, health and mental consequences
Would you agree with the following statement (why yes, why not):
"Pollution is usually a large benefit for a small group but brings small costs to many."
i agree that pollution is usually a large benefit for a small group and the consequence is costs to many. but i think the costs are large, not small.
because the costs are: big health damage, long-term damage, economic costs of flooding and drought.
Will Germany reach its climate goal? How can Germany reach its climate goals by 2030?
What are examples of cost and benefits of causing pollution?
Health Impacts
Environmental Degradation
Economic Costs
Climate Change
Social Costs
Economic Growth
Increased Production
Energy Production
Infrastructure Development
Consumer Goods Availability
While there might be short-term economic benefits from causing pollution, these are often outweighed by long-term costs to health, the environment, and social fairness. Sustainable practices that reduce pollution can create healthier communities and a more stable economy in the long run. It's important to find a balance between reducing pollution and supporting economic growth for effective policy-making.
Eco Taxes
Taxes involve net transfers of income from polluters to government
Double dividend hypothesis: revenues could be used to reduce distortionary taxes (environment is improved and efficiencyg ains accrue to the economy as whole)
Subsidies leadton et transfers from government to polluters
The introduction of an eco tax has positive environmental effects
Positive effect through the reuse of revenue to reduce distortive taxes (‘ Steuereinnahmen Wiederverwendungseffekt ‘)
Further effects through the tax interaction effect (`Steuer Interaktionseffekt
Introduction of an eco tax makes the corresponding product more expensive
Effects on other product markets and the labor market
Steuern beinhalten Netto-Einkommenstransfers von den Verursachern zum Staat
Hypothese der doppelten Dividende: Die Einnahmen könnten zur Senkung verzerrender Steuern verwendet werden (die Umwelt wird verbessert und die Wirtschaft als Ganzes profitiert von Effizienzgewinnen)
Subventionen führen zu Transfers vom Staat an die Verursacher
Die Einführung einer Ökosteuer hat positive Umweltauswirkungen
Positiver Effekt durch die Wiederverwendung des Aufkommens zur Senkung wettbewerbsverzerrender Steuern (' Steuereinnahmen Wiederverwendungseffekt ')
Weitere Effekte durch den Steuerinteraktionseffekt (`Steuer Interaktionseffekt
Einführung einer Ökosteuer verteuert das entsprechende Produkt
Auswirkungen auf andere Produktmärkte und den Arbeitsmarkt
Weak form of the eco tax double dividend
and
Strong form of the eco tax double dividend
Welfare is greater if the revenue generated by environmental policy is used to reduce distortionary taxation instead of being refunded in a flat rate sum.
Use of revenue from the eco tax to reduce distorting taxes
--> Cost savings compared to flat rate reimbursement
The revenue neutral substitution of typical competition distorting taxes with an environmental tax is associated with gross costs of zero or negative.
Use of revenue from the eco
tax to reduce distorting taxes
--> Generally no costs or even cost savings
Schwache Form der Ökosteuer-Doppeldividende
Die Wohlfahrt ist größer, wenn die durch die Umweltpolitik erzielten Einnahmen zur Senkung der verzerrenden Besteuerung verwendet werden, anstatt sie in Form eines Pauschalbetrags zu erstatten.
Verwendung der Einnahmen aus der Ökosteuer zur Senkung wettbewerbsverzerrender Steuern
--> Kosteneinsparungen im Vergleich zur pauschalen Erstattung
Starke Form der Ökosteuer-Doppeldividende
Die aufkommensneutrale Substitution typischer wettbewerbsverzerrender Steuern durch eine Umweltsteuer ist mit Bruttokosten von Null oder negativ verbunden.
Verwendung der Einnahmen aus der Ökosteuer
Steuer zur Senkung wettbewerbsverzerrender Steuern
--> Im Allgemeinen keine Kosten oder sogar Kosteneinsparungen
Zuletzt geändertvor einem Monat
