Sustainable development, innovation and
ecological tax reforms:
linking global and local perspectives
Massimiliano Mazzanti
OPENLOC workshop December 12th 2011
UniversitA’ di Ferrara
Sustainability I: Capital based economic
view
SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY IS AN
‘INVESTING SOCIETY’
Capital shares at different income levels
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
manmade
natural
intangible
low income
medium income
income level
high income
Applied estimations genuine saving
(world bank)
• Kazakistan
• 30% GDp gross saving
• 18% net saving
• Saving Rises to 22% including education
investments
• - 10% including all natural resource depreciations
• Negative genuine saving
Holland vs Kenya capital stocks shares
of wealth
• Holland
– 78% Human capital + institutions
• Of which 36% schooling; 57% institutions, property rights
– 3% natural capital (of which 57% land)
– 19% produced man made capital
• Kenya
– 46% natural capital (1/2 crops)
– 13% man made
– 42% intangible including human capital
Hamilton adjusted rule (2007)
• U/ t= Uc G(r- G/G)
– G= genuine saving (net saving)
• G=0 Hartwick rule  U/ t=0
• G=Y/G fixed share
• Growth in net income
–
–
–
–
(C+G)/(C+G) = net saving (constant)* MPK (r)/α
MPK 0.07 o 7%
α = non nat resource share, around 0.7 average
So (C+G)/(C+G) = net saving (constant)* 0.1
• Growth 10% of net saving
Ferreira Hamilton Vincent (2008)
• Current saving  future consumption
– Gross
– Net save
– Green saving
– Pop adjusted
-0.76*
-0.72*
0.558**
0.560**
• Ferreira Vincent add developing countries
Holland vs Kenya capital stocks shares of
wealth
• Holland
– 78% Human capital + institutions
• Of which 36% schooling; 57% institutions, property rights
– 3% natural capital (of which 57% land)
– 19% produced man made capital
• Kenya
– 46% natural capital (1/2 crops)
– 13% man made
– 42% intangible including human capital
Ghana – decomposition of genuine
saving
Gross saving
Gross + education
minus depreciation
minus forest depletion
minus mineral depletion
minus CO2 = Adj Net Saving
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
% of GNI
SD  What matters is to accumulate an increasing stock of
total capital forms
20.0
Key issues
• Sustainable development
– Weak and strong economic perspectives
– Daly idea of zero growth
– Renewable and non renewable resources
• Environmental efficiency of economic systems
– The critical role of innovation only engine for sustainaed
economic growth and sustainability (Solow models)
– Sustanaibility and sustaianed growth entangled issues:
trade offs but also complementarities through the role of
innovation
What is sustainable development?
• SD is the achievement of a sustained path of
economic growth which does not undermine future
generation possibilities of consumption
• We may define what “future generation” means
– An orthodox economist would claim that this depends on
our time preference  discount rate reasoning..
– The higher the discount rate, depending on consumption
and oportunity costs factors, the less future benefits and
costs are valued…
– r = pure time myopic preference + consumption growth;
otherwise equals tha market oppotunity cost, the foregone
benefit of an investment
• Recall that GNP=C+I
• Recall that NetNP= GNP – depreciation of
capital
• Capital stocks dynamics depends on
accumulation and depreciation
SD is linked to Total capital or natural
capital?
• Total capital = manmade + human capital + natural
capital
• Each capital stock is defined by a rate of growth, I –
Deprec.
• If I=dep, then capital is steady
• Y=(TOT-K)
• Thus, a first intuitive golden rule for SD is that total K
should be at least constant, Inv should at least match
depreciation..
• Genuine saving rule: INV >= depreciation
..but..
• This may imply a decreasing natural capital
stock, if natK is substituted by other forms
– This is the western country history
– i.e. arab countries management of non renewable
resources
– UK oil exploitation
– In any case, rents from natural resource use
should be re-invested..
• Thus, weak sustainability may also imply a complete
exhaustion of natural resources…
• Strong sustainability is instead stressing the critical role of
some natural capital forms…irreversible losses…eco-systemic
losses
• The genuine saving rule is applied to specific environmental
assets
– i.e. compensation projects
– It works for renewable resources (forests, fishery..)
– Striking difference between the management of non renew resources
(the problem is a correct price and a path of exploitation which takes
into account the existence of an alternative backsyop technology) and
renewable resources, which often posses use and non use values…
• SD is also possible in case a reduced amount of capital is inherited by
future generations….
• …but this capital must be more productive..more efficient..
• We go back to the role of environmental innovation in triggering higher
resource efficiency of the economy
• A key issue is what he driving forces of innovation are:
– Prices (neoclassic view)
– Policy  which kind of policy…static reasoning demonstrate the higher
efficiency of green taxes and tradable permits (over CAC)…dynamic efficiency
should also be higher for economic instruments, but it is more an empirical
matter
– Firm internal strategies..Porter hp..firm gains from innovation in the long run,
to achieve new competitive advantages…hp at macro and micro level
– A weak version of the hp claims that in the long run the policy costs are lower
than the induced innovation gains…NET benefits..
..summing up..
• SD depends on the decision on how much investing in each
period…(recall Y=C+I)..a part of the investment is in
innovation (tech and organizational)
• ..but even sustained economic growth (Solow Model) is
possible only in presence of technological change enhancing
factor productivity..
• SD intrinsically depends on innovation, which is an
investment, which also depends on economic growth..
• The possibility of achieving a SD path relies on the extent to
which innovation investments are capable of reducing the
impact of a sustained economic growth..
• This issue is known as Delinking: environmental impact from
economic growth
Human Development Index
(HDI)
Human Development Index (HDI)
IL’HDI introduce un modo nuovo di misurare lo sviluppo dei
diversi paesi mondiali combinando insieme indicatori di:
- Aspettativa di vita
- Scolarizzazione
- Reddito
In un unico indicatore sintetico. La principale novità di tale
approccio è la capacità di esprimere, tramite una sola
statistica, aspetti sociali ed economici dei diversi paesi. Lo
scopo è quello di avere un indicatore più preciso del PIL pro
capite per misurare lo sviluppo dei paesi.
Per la costruzione dell’HDI vengono creati dei pesi delle singole
variabili prese in considerazione, che vanno poi a creare
l’indicatore finale. L’HDI fissa il livello minimo e massimo per
ogni dimensione e indica a che livello è posizionato ogni singolo
paese all’interno di questo range (minimo è 0, massimo 1)
Education
• La componente relativa alla scolarizzazione è
misurata da due indici. Il primo è rappresentato
dal numero di anni medio di scuola per adulti di
25 anni e il secondo dal numero di anni attesi di
scuola per i bambini al primo anno di scuola.
• Expected years of schooling estimates are based
on enrolment by age at all levels of education and
population of official school age for each level of
education.
Aspettativa di vita
• L’aspettativa di vita è calcolata
normalizzando la serie usando un valore
minimo di 20 anni e massimo di 83.4.
Questo è dato dal massimo valore possibile
registrato per la serie di tutti i paesi
analizzati dal 1980-2010. Di conseguenza, la
componente di longevità dentro all’HDI per
un paese con aspettativa di vita pari a 55
anni è di 0.552.
Ricchezza
• For the wealth component, the goalpost for
minimum income is $100 (PPP) and the
maximum is $107,721 (PPP), both estimated
during the same period, 1980-2011.
• References:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/
Inequality-adjusted Human
Development Index (IHDI)
Il rapporto UNDP del 2010, introduce per la prima volta una
versione dell’HDI che tenga conto della distribuzione dei
redditi e del concetto di disuguaglianza, chiamato Inequalityadjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). Sotto l’ipotesi di
perfetta distribuzione dei redditi l’IHDI e l’HDI sono uguali, ma
l’IHDI si discosta dall’HDI (diventa minore) quando
l’uguaglianza viene meno. In altri termini, l’IDHI può essere
considerato come il reale livello di sviluppo umano raggiunto
da un paese, mentre l’HDI può essere visto come il livello di
sviluppo umano potenziale che un paese potrebbe
raggiungere se non vi fosse disuguaglianza.
References: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ihdi/
Sustainability II: efficient growth
SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY
THAT ‘DE-COUPLES’ ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE FROM GROWTH
CO2/GDP intensity - 42% over 1950-2000
• GDP per capita: three times higher over1950-2000
6.500
0,31
6.000
0,29
5.500
0,27
5.000
0,25
4.500
0,23
4.000
0,21
3.500
0,19
3.000
0,17
2.500
0,15
2.000
CO2 emission intensity of GDP
GDP per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)
GDP per capita
0,33
19
5
19 0
5
19 2
5
19 4
5
19 6
5
19 8
6
19 0
6
19 2
6
19 4
6
19 6
6
19 8
7
19 0
7
19 2
7
19 4
7
19 6
7
19 8
8
19 0
8
19 2
8
19 4
8
19 6
8
19 8
9
19 0
9
19 2
9
19 4
9
19 6
9
20 8
00
000 metric tons of C per million $
CO2 emission per unit of GDP
CO2 emission intensity of GDP and GDP per capita: World, 1950-2000
100
80
40
60
20
High growth
1990
ITALY
1995
2000
Year
CO2
SOx
2005
NOx
2010
Delinking and Kuznets curves
Turning point
Environ
mental
pressure
Policy
effect?
Absolute
delinking
Recoupling
possibility (?)
Relative
delinking
(if any)
Economic drivers
Delinking
• Advanced economic systems have been
characterised by a decreasing intensity of energy and
materials per unit of output, driven by technological
dynamics and regulatory pressures. OECD recently
published a document (OECD, 2002) containing an
updated evidence on the de-linking from economic
growth, concerning diverse environmental indicators,
such as climate change, air pollution, water quality,
waste management, and material use.
• Delinking may occur on a relative basis (the elasticity
of the environmental impact indicator with respect
to an economic driver is positive, but less than unity)
or on an absolute basis (negative elasticity).
• The assessment of both de-linking processes can be
referred to the mostly applied research field
concerning Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC).
• The hypothesis derives from the original analysis of
Kuznets on the relationship between income level
and income distribution
• The EKC hypothesis is shortly that for many environmental impacts, an
inverted U-shaped relationships between per capita income and pollution
is documented.
• The concentration of a certain pollutant first increases with
income/production, reflecting a scale effect, more or less proportional,
then eventually starts to decrease, de-linking from income even on an
absolute basis.
• More specifically, the hypothesis predicts that the “environmental income
elasticity” decreases monotonically with income, and that it eventually
changes its sign from positive to negative, thus defining a turning point for
the inverted U-shaped relationship.
• It does not derive from a theoretical model, it is an intuitive conceptual
approach, inductive in nature..though some theoretical explanations have
emerged…
EKC motivations
•
Supply side
– Technology driven by economic growth (profits and investments..)
– The share of cleaner activities in GDP increases with the scale of the economy (scale +
composition effects)
– As scarcity increases, market prices should reflect it..self-regulatory mechanism?
– Environmental policy more likely in a developed economy  economic and political
conditions needed
– Property right enforcement (policy issue)
•
Demand side
– Environmental quality is a normal luxury good (as culture)..higher incomes mean higher
WTP for the environmental services..higher taxes are possible, new markets are
profitable..
– Preferences change as the society develops..the marginal value of consumption is
positive but decreasing
– Environmental costs are increasing even steeply…growth benefits decreasing….even a
simple marginal cost-benefit scheme may explain why delinking may occur
•
As it is evident, many forces play their role, in the interplay between supply and
demand, and between policy and spontaneous market dynamics
Policy relevance
• The EKC evidence may support the idea that
no policy is needed…market forces and market
dynamics are self-sufficient in inverting the
income-environment link
• BUT the environmental impact may be higher
than what is defined as sustainable…policy
efforts are needed to support and correct
markets..affecting the shape of the EKC
• Empirical evidence, which has mainly
concerned air emissions, is still ambiguous.
Some pollutants show a turning point, though
it shared view that some critical externalities,
like CO2 and waste flows, are monotonically
rising with income. At best, relative de-linking
may be occurring (Stern, 2004).
• Air quality indicators
– Local air quality (CO, sulfur, PM) seem to show an inverted
U-shape with income.
– Global pollutants either rise monotonically with income or
eventually present very high turning point (not reached if
not by US)
– * private/public goods as far as countries are
concerned..free riding on global commons  policy
needed
• Water indicators
– The turning point is generally higher
– EKC for some indicators (local issues)
– N shape? (Borghesi, 1999)
waste
• Empirical evidence on Delinking concerning
environmental waste indicators is probably
the scarcest. Contributions providing results
for waste are rare. Cole et al. (1997) find no
evidence for an inverted U-shape EKC curve
concerning municipal waste
• See the Mazzanti-Zoboli paper (2005) on
waste and delinking…
• There is currently no evidence concerning delinking with respect to primary sources of
waste in Europe (i.e. municipal and packaging
waste), which have been targeted by wasteoriented European Directives aimed at
reducing diverse environmental externalities
associated to waste production and disposal
Some evidence
• Turning points 2003$/per capita (international
studies)
– CO2:
37000-57000
– CO
16000
– Nitrates
25-41000
– Nitrogen oxide
25-29000
– Sulfur dioxide
10000
– Sulfur dioxide (trans)
12-13000
– Suspended particulates 12-13000
Water pollution
• Differentiated EKC evidence by pollutants
• From 3400$ for nitrates to 17700$ for lead
• All other pollutants (cadmium, fecal coliforms,
oxygen, arsenic, sulfur dioxide…) around 800013000
Deforestation
• Some studies, but:
– Low data quality
– Deforestation is a complex issue: many drivers play a role
• Evidence for tropical countries, latin america, africa
– 9000 and 8000$ for Latin america and africa in 2001..higher than most
country level around 5000
– Other study 10000-12000 in 2003$
– Other evidence (Panayotou and others) find lower turning points
occuring at 1000-3000$...but we recall that the environmental peak
matters…
– Panayotou also argues that the most dramatic impact overall occurs
between 1000 and 3000 per capita (China, India, Africa...)
• The first methodological problem for the applied analysis is
how specifying the EKC functional relationship. There is no
consensus on it.
• Some authors use second order polynomial, others have
estimated third and even forth order polynomials, comparing
different specifications for relative robustness. It is worth
noting that neither the quadratic nor cubic function can be
considered a full realistic representation of the incomeenvironment relationship.
• The cubic implies that environmental degradation will tend to
plus or minus infinity as income increases, the quadratic
implies that environmental degradation could eventually tend
to zero. The issue is thus highly unresolved.
• Shobee (2004) suggests a third order polynomial specification
as more realistic relationship between environmental
degradation and income per capita. This supports the
credence of a logistic shape, wherein environmental
degradation first accelerates, then decelerates, and finally
falls.
• Marginal environmental degradation is thus not modelled as
constant. The issue still remains highly unresolved, with the
EKC hypothesis relying mainly on empirical evidence. The
theoretical foundations of the EKC are still ambiguous, though
some contributions have emerged (Andreoni and Levinson,
2001).
• Third or forth level polynomial could also lead to N rather
than U shaped curves, opening new problematic issues in
understanding the income-environment phenomenon for
policymaking.
• This N shape is justified by a non-linear effect by the scale of
economic activity on the environment, which is difficulty to
prove.
• Finally, the use of the income factor only, without quadratic
and cubic terms, would collapse the EKC analysis to the basic
decoupling analysis.
• For a simple presentation of EKC with a discussion of the core
hypothesis see De Bruyn et al. (1998) and Stern (2004).
• The aforementioned delinking hypothesis is tested by
specifying a proper reduced form usual in the EKC field (Stern,
2004).
– panel data framework, where the relative fit of fixed effect and
random effect models is compared by the Hausman statistic
– it allows the treatment of unobserved effects..but rare..
– Cross section frame (usually OCSE, world bank data..)..endogenity
issue…causality relationship…???
– The need to move the analysis from cross country to single country
and regional analysis..cross country analysis may hide some EKC
specificity..we just estimate mean values…no policy value..
The hypotheses on Delinking are thus tested
by estimating a reduced form regression
model (i.e. waste):
• log(waste/N)= 0i + t +
1Log(Consumption/GDP) it + 2
Log(Consumption/GDP)2 it + 3
Log(Consumption/GDP)3 it + ei
• Where the first two terms are intercept
parameters, which vary across countries and
years (in a panel frame).
Literature review
• An extensive literature has developed since the early 90s…
• Biased on emissions at macro level…good availability…but rough
data..need of panel regional studies…
• Let’s see and comment some key works..
• The main objective is the finding of a turning point…
• …but even the presence of a demonstrated turning point may not assure a
Sustainable path..
– Irreversible losses over a certain environmental impact (critical threshold)
– Developed and non developed countries…may the world economy sustain the
impact of a EKC path in developing countries equal to that experienced by
western economies?
– The problem of consequential developemnt….with scarce resources…
Innovation must be transfered in order to “cut” the developing countries
EKC…this is a crucial issue within Kyoto
List and Gallet (1999), Ecolec
• Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for 1929-1994,
panel data
• US State level
• They underline:
– Evidence at US state level
– The issue of “omitted variables”..when including additional
explanatory variables EKC evidence changes…
– State level evidence is needed..they find that states with
urban areas and more densely populated show a turning
point at lower income levels..more policy attention?
Harbaugh et al (2001), NBER paper
• They also test whether EKC evidence changes when the set of
explanatory factors is extended, in addition to income terms…
–
–
–
–
Policy
Country/state features (weather, pop density, industrial/rural..)
Other control variables
TRADE intensity
• Evidence may change even when
– the set of countries is changed
– The number of years is different
• They show that for SO2, smoke and total susp part. The
GDP/pollution relationship is sensitive to both sample
seelction and empirical specification
• No EKC evidence
TRADE
• Some authors claim that for some pollutants
the EKC evidence may only imply that more
polluting activities are moved to other
countries  from western to developing
countries
Markandya et al (2004), FEEM
• This is a EU12 specific study using a long time series..probably
the most effective way of estimating EKC
• Sulfur emissions 1850-1999: top value for 9 countries during
1970-1985
• Panel analysis:
– Best fir with fourth order polynomial
– Two turning points: 7000$ and 25000$ (lower emissions) per capita
income
– Individual country analysis show different model fits and different
turning points
• Then, UK only to account for the effect of Acts/regulations on
emissions..including a dummy in policy years..no impact
McPherson et al (2005), ECOL-ECON
•
•
•
•
EKC and Threatened species..new issue
Cross country data..poor data availability
113 countries in 2000
Dep var: % of threatened species in 2000 + extinct in 19901999
• Results:
– For birds and mammals, the curve seems rising up to around 1000015000$, then species classified as threatened decreases
– Population density negatively impacts
– Islamic and post-communist and communist countries have more
species as threatened..property rights definition? Green policies in
democratic countries…this opens a new public choice political issue
(growth-democracy-environmental quality..what is the causal link?)
European waste case study (Mazzanti
and Zoboli, 2005)
• Results indicate that stronger efforts are needed in order to
increase the waste-oriented efficiency of economic processes.
They confirm the fact that, concerning primary waste issues,
even relative de-linking is questioned on a average European
level.
• Environmental policy makers should remain hesitant about
the idea of economic growth as self-sufficient driving force of
environmental improvements, the reality is much more
complex for most environmental indicators.
• The income elasticity of primary non hazardous waste flows in
observed European countries is likely to be, or become in the
medium term, less than one, but it is certainly not negative
Final points
• Different polynomial specifications are tested by including as
• (i) dependant variable waste per capita and waste in absolute
terms,
• (ii) independent variables either household consumption or
GDP per capita, thus testing the hypothesis which indicates
that consumption is a more appropriate driver for waste.
• In fact, recent studies (Rothman, 1998; EEA, 2003a,b) point
out that for municipal and packaging waste the proper
economic driver/indicator is not GDP, but household
consumption instead. This is a key issue on both conceptual
and statistical grounds.
..from EKC to environmental
Innovation
• The EKC framework has confirmed the need of triggering
innovation and then transferring innovation to industrializing
countries…
• since property rights definition, market functioning,env. policy
and income are four main sources of innovation
• Interesting study by Komen et al (1997) on the relationship
between income and public R&D in environmental protection
activities (not abatement)
– They find an income elasticity not different from one
– It shows the relevancy of the income  R&D  innovation  growth
+ SD complex set of dynamic links
Ecological tax reforms
ECOLOGICAL TAX REFORMS AS POLICY SHOCKS TO
SPUR SUSTAINABILITY AND GROWTH BY
INNOVATION
EU south
0
.5
1
Co2 trends and TIME RELATED EVENTS (OIL shocks, Policy)
-.5
lco2pc
fitted_ramp93
fitted_ramp97
1960
1970
1980
year
fitted_step93
fitted_step97
1990
2000
.8
1
1.2
1.4
North america and Oceania
.6
lco2pc
fitted_ramp93
fitted_ramp97
1960
1970
1980
year
Mazzanti & Musolesi FEEM paper 2010
fitted_step93
fitted_step97
1990
2000
1.2
Co2 trends, EU North
.8
.9
1
1.1
ETR? In
Scandinavia,
UK, Holland..
.7
lco2pc
fitted_ramp93
fitted_ramp97
1960
1970
1980
year
fitted_step93
fitted_step97
1990
2000
After 1995, env policy in the EU did not hamper exports, often there is a + correlation…
Costantini & Mazzanti, 2011, Research Policy
Ecological tax reforms ETR
• Shift fiscal burden from labour to ‘things’ and
assets
• Carbon tax and other taxes may generate 2-3%
GDP in revenue
• Andersen et al. (EEA) Estimate overall 35 billions in
Italy (event on ETR next week at the Treasury!)
• (false) problems
– Inflationary?
– Regressive? (VAT..)
– Reduce competitiveness….
A paradise for ETR
implementation !
(EU) Fiscal stimulus is needed!!
!!!!!
Source: Prometeia,
october 2011
Energy intensity
110
105
100
95
EU (27 countries)
Germany
90
France
85
Italy
80
United Kingdom
75
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
70
The case
for ETR in
Italy
GHG
110
105
100
EU (27 countries)
95
Germany
90
France
85
Italy
80
United Kingdom
75
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
70
GERD total
2.75
2.55
2.35
2.15
EU (27 countries)
1.95
Germany
France
1.75
Italy
United Kingdom
1.55
1.35
1.15
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0.95
Two options
 Labour /social security
tax cuts
 Increase labor demand of
unskilled, women and
young
 Short run aggregate
demand impacts
 Not a long run growth fact
 Innovation oriented
reycling.
 Energy efficiency stimulus
 Through creation of trusts
and funds that finance
innovation
 General technological
innovation (recyling on the
basis of energy use..) or ex
ante defining the type
(tender on specific issues)?
•Total environmental and energy taxes (% GDP); source: Eurostat
•Share of GDP, total Energy taxes
•Share of GDP, environmental & resource taxes
ETR: national and decentralised levels
 National levels of taxation (CO2)
 Regional and local levels
 Landfill taxes, Sox, Nox, PM10 taxes, water
extraction charges, resource taxes on minerals,
aggregates…
 Es. They could abate IRAP, the ‘hated’ regional tax
on economic activity, around 30 billions
 Issue of ‘Resource taxation reform’ RTR
Environmental externalities still at the heart of ETR
rationale
• Muller, Mendelshon,
• Transport, energy,
Nordhaus (2011),
agriculture, much more
Environmental Accounting
pollution intensive than
for Pollution in the US
manufacturing (very
economy, AER, 1649-75.
low in E/VA: 0.01 vs 0.1
• Gross external damage of
transport)
US economy 182 billions $
• Transport and
manufacturing both
account 10% of total
• Intuitive figure for Italy:
20-25 Billions €.
EEA report 2011 on air pollution costs in the EU
• ‘Revealing the costs of air pollution from
industrial facilities in Europe’
• 10000 facilities generate between 102169 billions € of damages (health and
environment)
• 50% caused by 191 sites out of 10000
(easier policy making)
• www.eea.europa.eu
Resource taxation
(waste, minerals, aggregates)
Applying ETR in local contexts
A political economy view on Resource
taxation
• The specificity of RT is that they deal with…
•
•
•
•

Externalities
Revenue recycling
(weak) sustainability objectives
resource efficiency
.. In strict interrelation and complementarity with

Rents management + Regional planning
– (this is the decentralised issue of environmental
federalism)
Very soon coming out!
• ETC/SCP (2012), Mineral /resource taxation
and resource efficiency, wp paper for the EEA
• http://scp.eionet.europa.eu
New waste tariff diffusion
Recycling per capita
Some risks of decentralised settings………………..
(unintended?) Induced effects of ETR: Porter
and beyond…
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS
MEI (Measuring Eco-Innovation) research project ecoinnovation is defined as
• “the production, assimilation or exploitation of
a product, production process, service or
management or business method that is novel
to the organisation (developing or adopting it)
and which results, throughout its life-cycle, in
a reduction of environmental risks, pollution
and other negative impacts of resources use
(including energy use) compared to relevant
alternatives”.
Product and process EI adoption
2006 2008 Industry in Italy (CIS)
Energy efficiency
Abatement of CO2
TOT Industry
18%
(9-32%)
14%
(9-25%)
NO
18%
14%
NE
19%
15%
CE
15%
13%
SUD
15%
15%
ISOLE
14%
16%
N=6483
Comparable data for Germany present 30-40% shares
Kyoto?
Glachant et al (2011), Review of environmental economics and policy
Table 3–CO2 and SOX emission intensity (kg x 1M€ of value added, increasing order)
Region
Trentino Alto Adige
Campania
Valle d’Aosta
Piedmonte
Lazio
Marche
Lombardy
Abruzzo
Veneto
Emilia Romagna
Tuscany
ITALY
Calabria
Umbria
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Basilicata
Liguria
Sicily
Molise
Sardinia
Puglia
CO2
136
141
153
185
204
206
209
258
267
270
278
301
307
342
353
430
472
547
689
824
971
Region
Trentino Alto Adige
Valle d’Aosta
Abruzzo
Campania
Lombardy
Lazio
Marche
Piedmonte
Calabria
Basilicata
Emilia Romagna
Molise
Veneto
ITALY
Tuscany
Umbria
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Puglia
Liguria
Sicily
Sardinia
SOX
39
45
69
78
99
101
108
108
123
224
226
276
300
315
349
373
539
859
886
1,347
1,530
81
V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers
mzzmsm@unife.it
Shift-Share: productive specialization (industry mix)
component
0.2
0.1
CO2
SOx
NOx
0.0
NMVOC
PM10
-0.1
-0.2
Note: Below zero values indicate positive performances
83
V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers
Shift-Share: efficiency component
1.1
0.9
0.7
CO2
0.5
SOx
0.3
NOx
0.1
NMVOC
-0.1
PM10
-0.3
Note: Below zero values indicate positive performances
84
V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers
Hybrid EconomicEnvironmental Accounts
Edited by Valeria Costantini, Massimiliano
Mazzanti, Anna Montini
Published 1st December 2011 by Routledge
Routledge Studies in Ecological Economics