TED Case Studies

EC Carbon Tax

Go to All TED Cases



          CASE NUMBER:        226    

          CASE MNEMONIC:      ECCarbon  

          CASE NAME:          EC Carbon/Energy Tax  




1.  The Issue  


Since 1991, the European Community has been debating the merits  

and desired method of implementation of a plan to reduce the EC's 

emission of greenhouse gases, in this case specifically CO2.  The 

impetus for this debate was the Rio Conference on Climate Change  

in 1991; the EU jointly ratified the Rio Convention on Climate  

Change in December 1993.  The European Community (EC) proposed to 

stabilize carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 1990 levels by the  

year 2000.  "Greenhouse gases", gases that consist largely of  

CO2, are believed to be responsible for the global warming  

trend.  In order to reduce CO2 emissions, the European  

Commission proposed a carbon tax -- a tax on non-renewable energy 

sources, such as oil and coal, that release CO2 into the  

atmosphere.  The type of measure, which had been both  

controversial and contentious, has finally been determined by the 

European Parliament as a call for a 50/50 tax on both specific  

CO2 emissions and general energy (coal, oil, natural gas and  

nuclear).  The member states, however, have failed to agree even  

upon the need for such an EU-imposed tax, much less a full  

strategy for implementation.  


2.  Description  


In 1992, many nations of the world met to discuss global  

environmental problems at the Rio Conference on Climate Change  

(also called the "Earth Summit").  There, they determined that  

one of the primary threats facing the human race based on its own 

behavior is that of the global climate change caused by global  

warming.  One of the causes of global warming identified was the  

emission of so-called greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, and CFCs)  

from industrial processes.  The Rio Convention on Climate Change  

included an agreement to reduce significantly the emission of  

greenhouse gasses by all parties to the Convention, which the EU  

has been since December 1993.  


The method chosen by the EU was a discussion on a possible tax on 

energy, and/or CO2 emissions directly.  After spending nearly two 

years discussing and/or ignoring the issue, several committees of 

the European Parliament (ECOFIN, Environment) have agreed upon a  

50% carbon content/50% energy cost tax, to be applied to all  

member states.  The tax would not be intended to increase overall 

revenue, and member states would be allowed to choose what they  

would want to do with the money raised: most would likely use it  

to reduce the costs associated with social spending (see RIOTRADE 



While some members of the EU have come up with plans to reduce  

their production of CO2, several of which involve such a CO2 tax  

(Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the  

Netherlands) others have opposed the tax on various different  

grounds, including lesser industrialization/energy use and  

infringement of national sovereignty.  Spain, Portugal, Greece,  

and Ireland object to implementing the tax based upon their lower 

level of industrialization and energy use, and would rather have  

the tax level moderated for their circumstances.  Nonetheless,  

all members but the UK have agreed upon the necessity of the tax  

on an EU level.  The UK objects to the tax based on the principal 

of national sovereignty, and have proposed an internal increase  

on VAT on domestic power and road fuel, rather than a tax on  

emissions or energy.  


The tax has gone through a number of different incarnations, but  

was stabilized in its present form by the European Parliament's  

Environment Committee.  The Commission has given its approval of  

the tax plan, but the European Council has yet to agree to EU-  

wide implementation (member states have not agreed to it).  Part  

of the problem with the tax is that it is only intended to  

stabilize EU carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.   

Even with the tax, levels will not fall, they simply will not  

increase as high as they would without the tax.  (EC Energy  

Monthly, Sept 16, 1993).  


The March 1990 proposal came nine months after the Council passed 

a resolution urging member states to take measures in response to 

global climatic problems and to focus attention on improving  

energy efficiency.  The Commission's proposal to freeze CO2  

emissions at their 1990 levels was to be part of the EC's SAVE  

program (part of the EC's work program, Special Action Program  

for Vigorous Energy Efficiency).    


The carbon tax is to be part of the EC's overall environmental  

policy.  In order to enact a common environmental policy, the EC  

agreed to set up the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in 1990. 

The stated purpose of the organization is to provide accurate  

objective data on the environment in order to enforce EC  

legislation and to ensure that correct information is provided  

when new legislation is drafted.  One interesting feature of the  

EEA is that it is open to non-EC members.  Eastern and Central  

European nations have been encouraged to join as have members of  

the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).  A larger  

organization, however, will make decision-making more difficult  

and probably less effective.  The lesser-developed states will  

probably work to ensure that environmental decisions do not  

constrain their development strategies.  The interests of  

European Community members have also hindered the EEA from  

carrying out its mission.  France has held up the decision of  

where to locate the EEA until decisions could be made regarding  

the location of other Community institutions.     


Community environmental policy was further clarified when the  

Council issued a resolution in February of 1993 outlining the  

Community's policy on the environment and sustainable  

development.  The relationship between the environment and  

European Community industry is to be built on three pillars.  The 

resolution specifies that the "three pillars on which the  

environment/industry relationship will be based on:  


- improved resource management with a view to both  

rational use of resources and improvement of competitive  



- use of information for promotion of better consumer  

choice and for improvement of public confidence in  

industrial activity and controls in the quality of  



- Community standards for production processes and  



The Council resolution says that although there has been progress 

in reducing atmospheric pollution, "serious problems continue to  

exist."  The resolution reiterates the EC goal of stabilizing CO2 

emissions in the European Community at their 1990 levels in order 

to reduce atmospheric pollution in Europe and reverse the global  

warming trend.  


The Proposed Carbon Tax  


In March 1990 the Commission proposed to stabilize CO2 emissions at 

their 1990 levels by the year 2000.  The proposal was significant 

not only for the environmental and energy action the Community was 

proposing to take, but also because this was the first joint  

communique presented to the Council.  This would cut forecasted  

emissions by roughly 12 percent.     


EC ministers endorsed a three part strategy, outlined in a 1991  

white paper, to meet their goal regarding CO2 emissions: Community 

measures to promote energy saving; national measures to save  

energy; and an EC energy tax.  The tax, known as the carbon tax,  

would begin at $3.00 (US) on a barrel of oil (or its equivalent)  

and increase one dollar a year until it reaches $10.00 a year.   

There has been heated debate over the effectiveness of such a tax 

on CO2 emissions in Europe, and if a reduction of CO2 emissions in 

Western Europe would have much impact globally.  (In 1992, the  

European Community was responsible for only 13 percent of the  

world's CO2 emissions.)  There has also been controversy as to  

what impact the tax would have on the world oil market, the  

development of renewable sources of energy and the energy  

businesses within the EC.    


There are as many opponents against an energy tax, both in the  

public and private sector, as there are reasons to oppose it.   

Britain and Luxembourg have been against the proposal and in  

December 1993, Prime Minister John Major vowed to fight any further 

efforts at introducing the carbon tax.  Such a tax could be  

expected to reduce consumption in Europe and thereby lower demand 

on the world market.  Oil prices could drop, including the price of 

Britain's North Sea oil, and the British would obviously prefer not 

to see oil prices drop any more than they have already over the  

past decade.  The official British government policy has been to  

push for the principle of subsidiarity and to insist that each  

country should reach the CO2 goal individually.    


The poorer EC countries, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece, have 

maintained that the carbon tax would be a larger burden for them  

than for the other countries that are already more  

industrialized.  In addition, the lesser-developed EC states have 

contributed less to the overall CO2 levels that presently exist.  

Higher energy prices would make further economic development much 

more expensive thus making it more difficult for the poorer states 

to close the economic gap that still exists within the EC.    


The Commission, however, has attempted to come up with a compromise 

plan to win over the four poorest EC countries.  In October of  

1993, Environment Commissioner Yannis Paleokrassas proposed a plan 

that would relate the responsibility to impose the tax to a  

country's CO2 output and its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  A cut- 

off level would be established and those countries that were below 

the level (and all four poor countries are below the level proposed 

by Paleokrassas) would not have to implement the tax until their  

country's level rose above 85 percent of the EC average.  This  

plan has not been implemented yet either, and still would probably 

not be accepted by Britain.    


The carbon tax has obviously caused considerable animosity between 

members of the Community.  In June of 1993, Germany threatened to 

delay a joint EC ratification of the United Nations climate change 

convention unless Britain agreed that the tax was essential.   

Britain's position was to state that it agrees with the original  

pledge to reduce CO2 emissions and the subsequent reaffirmation at 

the Rio environmental summit, but does not see the need for the  

tax.  The climate change convention was eventually ratified in  

December after a deal was reached that left out any language  

linking the need for the carbon tax with the declaration to fight 

global warming.  


In September, the Danish utility company Elsam, along with another 

state-owned power company Elkraft, alleged that the private British 

electric utility company, PowerGen, tricked it into signing on to 

a list of European power companies that are opposed to the carbon 

tax.  The official Danish policy is the same as the Commission's  

regarding the carbon tax.  Denmark has in fact already established 

its own national CO2 tax.  Norway, Sweden, Finland and Holland also 

have their own versions of a CO2 tax in place.  


Oil producing states have criticized the EC for proposing what they 

believe is an unfair tax on oil.  Dr. Abdullah I. Al-Quwaiz,  

associate secretary-general for economic affairs in the Gulf  

Cooperation Council (GCC), stated, "[I]f we go by the logic of the 

"polluter pays", then oil has been paying more than its share in  

environmental degradation, while coal which emits 30 percent more 

carbon dioxide than oil, has been awarded subsidies."   Al-Quwaiz 

estimated that the GCC states would lose $17 billion in the year  

2000 because of reduced oil exports if the EC energy tax would be 



Proponents of the plan are still trying to find a way to implement 

it.  Jaques Delors, president of the European Commission, told  

environmentalists in February 1994 that he would continue to fight 

for the tax until the end of his term as president.  Delors  

appears ready to allow one or two countries exemptions of some type 

in order to push the tax through this year, according to the same 

news report.  The Commission is looking at several other compromise 

plans including allowing countries to include various existing  

national energy taxes as part of any new energy tax and is also  

entertaining the notion of levying a $3.00 per barrel tax instead 

of the original tax that would eventually reach $10.00 a barrel.  


The Commission hopes that a $3.00 tax would be enough of a  

compromise to convince the British to end their opposition to the 

tax.  Delors wants to use the energy tax money to fund programs  

such as the welfare program and thereby reduce the deductions from 

workers' wages that are presently used to fund such programs.   

This would hopefully create more jobs and alleviate some of the  

unemployment problems in the Community.  The $3.00 figure, however, 

would generate far less revenue than the $63 billion estimated for 

the year 2000 (using $10.00 a barrel) so it is unclear how  

significant the reductions in worker deductions would actually  



Case Update:

     Emissions of CFCs are steadily falling as a result of the

Montreal Protocol (although other gases which are potentially more

harmful due to their longer atmospheric lifetime, such as SF6 and

PFCs, are replacing them.) Also nitrous oxide (N20) is an important

greenhouse gas and will continue to be more so than CFCs. The IPCC

second assessment report (1995) states 'the direct radiative

forcing of the long-lived greenhouse gases (2.45 Wm-2) is due

primarily to increases in the concentrations of CO2 (1.56 Wm-2) CH4

(0.47 Wm-2) and N20 (0.14 Wm-2)'. It also goes on to say, 'The

direct radiative forcing due to CFCs and HCFCs combined is 0.25 Wm-

2. However, their net radiative forcing is reduced by about 0.1 Wm-

2 because they have caused stratospheric ozone depletion which

gives rise to a negative radiative forcing.' N.B. radiative forcing

is a measure of the importance of a potential climate change

mechanism: it is the perturbation to the energy balance of the

earth-atmosphere system in Wm-2.

     Additionally the Framework Convention on Climate Change was

adopted in New York on May 9, 1992 and it was opened for signature

at the Rio Earth Summit. It did not enter into force until March

21, 1994.

     For further information see the UNFCCC web site:



Lucie Whitford

Consultant, Information sub-programme

UN Climate Change Secretariat

3.   Related Cases  


     MONTREAL case  

     SULFUR case  

     CHINCOAL case  

     JAPANAIR case  

     KORPOLL case  

     CHILEAIR case  

     CLEAN case  

     VENEZ case  

     RIOTRADE case  


     Keyword Clusters  


     (1): Trade Product                 =  OILGAS  

     (2): Bio-geography                 =  GLOBAL  

     (3): Environmental Problem         =  Global Warming [GWARM] 



4.   Draft Authors: James Bonnell and Nathan J. Martz  




5.  Discourse and Status:  DISagreement and INPROGress  


While the 50/50 CO2/energy tax has been approved by several EU  

committees (ECOFIN, Environment) and the European Commission, it  

has yet to gain approval from the Council of Europe.  The member  

states have strong differences about the tax, and have yet to reach 

agreement among themselves on the details and on a timetable for  



6.  Forum and Scope: EURCOM and REGION  


7.  Decision Breadth: 15 (EURCOM members)  


The decision will have to be taken among the current EU members,  

and will have to be implemented in some form (itself or a similar 

measure with the same effects of reducing CO2 emissions) by every 

country that wishes to join.  Four countries have filed  

applications to join the EU currently: Austria, Norway, Sweden, and 

Finland.  Only Norway's vote is still in question; the other three 

countries will be members of the EU in January, 1995.  Any other  

countries that apply in the future would also have to implement  

such a measure, so the potential breadth is wider than its current 



8.  Legal Standing:  TREATY  


This decision was somewhat difficult.  The Rio Convention which  

sparked the carbon/energy tax debate is certainly a treaty.  The EU 

government only has the standing to discuss or require such a tax 

on its members because of the treaties between members (Rome  

Treaty, SEA, Maastricht).  However, member states (especially the 

UK) have disputed the grounds for an EU-wide, Commission-mandated 

tax in that it would infringe on their national sovereignty (their 

sole prerogative to tax).  If the tax is implemented, it will be  

solely because the members agree to its implementation; the EU  

cannot force the tax on its members.  


C.  GEOGRAPHIC Clusters  


9.  Geographic Locations  


     a.  Geographic Domain: EUROPE  


     b.  Geographic Site: EUROPE  


     c.  Geographic Impact: EUROPE  


10.  Substate: NO  


11.  Type of Habitat: TEMPerate  


D.  TRADE Clusters  


Note that all economic information has been exerpted from "The  

economic effects of the proposed CO2/energy tax" in European  

Economy, March 1993, No. 3.    


12.  Type of measure: Tariffs and taxes [IMTAX]  


The tax would be start out at the rate of $3/barrel of crude oil  

energy equivalent (that is, the amount that an equivalent amount of 

electricity generated from oil would cost, in the case of coal, gas 

and nuclear energy), going up to $10/barrel in seven years.   

Individual states, as stated, have yet to agree to the tax.  The  

energy tax would be used, not to raise revenues, but rather to  

allow a transfer from energy to social expenditures. The tax is  

only intended to go through if other OECD nations also implement  

the tax.  


13.  Direct vs. Indirect Impacts:  INDirect  


While the energy tax has no prima facie effect upon trade per se, 

indirectly it could affect the importation of energy, especially  

oil from OPEC.  At least, that is the fear behind the Gulf States 

desire to prevent implementation of the tax; with higher prices,  

they are afraid that the EU will import less oil.  The  

environmental impact of implementing the tax should be to reduce  

CO2 emissions in the EC to 1990 or earlier levels; the  

environmental impact of the tax should be positive.  The problem to 

be more concerned with is the environmental impact if the tax  

should fail: what will such a failure mean for global environmental 

efforts?  If the European Community cannot agree on such an  

important, possibly critical issue as what to do about global  

warming, how can developed nations expect any other countries to  

take this issue seriously?  Japan and the U.S. have already  

rejected similar measures.  


14.  Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact  


     a.  Directly Related:    NOS    


     b.  Indirectly Related:  YES [GASOIL][COAL]   


     c.  Not Related:         NO  


     d.  Process Related:     YES POLA  


15.  Trade Product Identification:  GASOIL and COAL  


16.  Economic Data  


The tax would be phased in from a rate of ECU 17.75 ($3) per ton of 

oil equivalent to ECU 59.17 ($10) by 2000.  Renewable energy  

sources are not taxed (biomass, hydro, wind).  The tax is split  

50/50 between energy content and carbon content; therefore, high- 

carbon sources like coal are the hardest hit by the tax, and  

countries which make higher use of coal will also be most affected 

by the tax (if they prove unwilling to switch from coal to cleaner 

fuels).  In US equivalence, the total value of the tax in all EU  

nations would be about $10 billion/year (if implemented) by 2000. 

OPEC countries have claimed that such taxes will result in serious 

revenue problems, but numbers are not yet convincing.  


17.  Degree of Competitive Impact: LOW  


The measure is likely to strongly increase the price of energy-  

intensive industries; moderately increase or decrease the prices  

for other manufacturing industries;  moderately decrease prices for 

services.  However, the degree to which these increases/decreases 

will affect European industrial competitiveness is unknown at this 

time.  To some degree, this appears to be a trade-off between  

potential competitive impact and potential environmental benefits, 

both of which may be projected, but are not even reletively known. 


A carbon energy tax would make CO2 emitting fuels more expensive in 

the European Community and decrease imports of such types of fuels. 

There has been an extensive lobbying campaign undertaken by oil  

producing states in the Persian Gulf area to protest any such  

carbon tax.  A carbon tax also would increase use of alternative  

forms of energy in the EC.  Solar, wind and nuclear power would  

become more feasible from an economic standpoint.  A positive  

benefit is the development of new and better technologies for  

producing electricity and transportation.  


In 1992, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Economic  

Development (OECD) published an economic/environmental study that 

simulated the effects of the EC energy tax using a model called the 

"GREEN" model.  According to the OECD model, implementing the  

carbon tax in 1992 would put CO2 emissions in the year 2000 at or 

below 1990 levels.  Community CO2 emissions would steadily decrease 

as the Community begins to rely on alternative carbon-free electric 

energy source.  Economically, the coal and oil industries of the EC 

would suffer substantial financial losses, but real GDP would  

decrease only 1/2 percent by the year 2010.  The global  

environmental effects of the EC tax, however, would be fairly  

insignificant.  As time goes on, EC emissions of CO2 as a  

percentage of the world CO2 emissions decreases until the year 2050 

when it becomes less than one percent.  The OECD believes the tax 

would depress the world oil and coal prices thereby making oil and 

coal more attractive to lesser-developed nations.  


Lower energy prices create less incentives for lesser-developed  

(LDCs) countries to search for alternative forms of energy because 

lower energy prices mean these nations could afford to burn more  

oil and coal.  So even though the EC would be reducing its CO2  

emissions, the predicted lower coal and oil prices would result in 

an increase in overall global emissions of CO2.  The carbon tax, as 

it was proposed, is an unilateral plan that sets an example for the 

rest of the international community rather than a comprehensive  

global plan for reducing CO2 emissions.  It is not too surprising 

then that according to the OECD study, the EC energy tax would have 

little effect on world CO2 emissions or the global warming  



The effect of such a tax on the oil producers, however, would be  

significant.  Independent studies estimate that it would cost the 

oil producing countries of the Middle East around 14 billion  

dollars a year.  Community oil and coal producers would also  

suffer financially.  One possible side-effect of a carbon tax would 

be to make nuclear power more attractive even though nuclear power 

is potentially more of a long-term environmental problem.     


A more positive outcome of a tax on non-renewable energy sources  

would result in the development and commercial application of  

alternative sources of renewable energy.  Solar and wind power  

would become more cost effective and an attractive alternative.   

Research and development of other sources would most likely  

accelerate.  Oil and coal supplies will not last indefinitely and 

the EC would have a head start on the rest of the world in the  

development of new sources of energy.  


18.  Industry Sector:  UTILity  


19.  Exporter and Importer: MANY and EURCOM   


E.  ENVIRONMENT Clusters  


20.  Environmental Problem Type:  Global Warming [GWARM]  


21.  Species Information  


22.  Impact and Effect: LOW and PRODuct  


23.  Urgency and Lifetime:  MEDium and 100s of years  


24.  Substitute:  LIKE  


Some conservation effects, some substitution effects hoped for.   

Primary substitute being switching from 'dirtier' coal to somewhat 

'cleaner' oil.  Otherwise, conservation would be likely to be  

encouraged, although it might just as well encourage greater use of 

hydro, wind, biomass, nuclear, etc.  


F.   OTHER Factors  


25.  Culture:  NO  


26.  Human Rights:  NO  


27.  Trans-Boundary Issues:  YES  


     This might be considered to involve trans-boundary issues in 

that some states (like the UK) consider EU directives such as the 

goal of the CO2/energy tax to be impositions upon their national  

sovereignty.  The effects of the environmental problems are  

certainly cross-border in scope, i.e. CO2 emissions causing air  

pollution respect no borders.  The issue of global warming  

(although scientists have by no means agreed upon the reality of  

dangers from global warming due to industrial processes) could also 

be considered a trans-boundary.  


3.  Relevant Literature  


Agence France Presse.  "Delors is Still Battling for Energy Tax." 

Agence France Presse, Financial pages, Feb. 2, 1994.  


Axelrod, Regina S.  "Reconciling Energy Use with Environmental  

     Protection in the European Community."  International  

     Environmental Affairs,  V.4 (Summer 1992): 185-202.  


Commission of the European Communities.  Environmental Policy in  

     the European Community. Luxembourg: Office for Official  

     Publications of the European Communities, 1990.  


Commission of the European Communities.  Working for a Better  

     Environment:  The Role of Social Partners.  Luxembourg: Office 

    for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1989.  

Commission of the European Communities.  Proposal for a Council  

     Directive Introducing a Tax on Carbon Dioxide Emissions  

     and Energy.  June 30, 1992.  


The Economist: "Sootbusters"  Oct 12, 1991 p19-20.  


European Economy.  Supplement A: Recent Economic Trends.  "The  

economic effects of the proposed CO2/energy tax."  


The Economist.  "Europe's Industries Play Dirty."  The Economist, 

     May 9, 1992: 91.  


Europe Information Service.  "CO2/Energy Tax:  Danish Electricity 

     Utilities 'Tricked' by UK's Powergen."  Europe Energy, Sep.  

     17, 1993.  


Financial Times.  "Valuing the Environment."  The Financial Times, 

     Aug.19, 1993.  


Information Access Company.  "US and EC Grapple with Energy Taxes." 

     Petroleum Economist Ltd,  July 1993.  


Nicoletti, Giuseppe and Joaquim Oliveira-Martins.  "Global Effects 

     of the European Carbon Tax."  Economics Working Paper No. 125. 

     Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 



Reuters. "EC to Ratify Climate Change Convention This Month." The 

     Reuter Library Report, Business section, Dec. 16, 1993.  


Reuters.  "U.S. Climate Plan not as Good as CO2 Tax."  The Reuter 

     European Community Report, Oct. 20, 1993.  


Reuters.  "Bid to Win Poor Countries' Vote on Energy Tax." The  

     Reuter European Community Report, Oct.5, 1993.  



The following items were all culled from Lexis/Nexis, specifically 

the European library, keywords carbon and energy and tax were used. 


Specific files accessed included EC Energy Monthly, Europe  

Environment, European Energy Report, and Power Europe.  


EC Energy Monthly  copyright The Financial Times Limited  


Date           Title  


July 6, 1993   "'Calamitous blow' of CO2 tax - OPEC"  

Aug 4, 1993    "EC/GCC to study global energy/environmental  


Sept 26, 1993  "CO2-Energy tax splits views of MEPs"  

Oct 21, 1993   "Environment Committee votes for 50/50 CO2/energy  


Oct 21, 1993   "Burden sharing carrot offered to cohesion  


Oct 21, 1993   "DGXI waits for Member States to update CO2  


Nov 19, 1993   "Japan shies from CO2 tax"  

Nov 19, 1993   "CO2 Tax re-packaged?  MEP's react angrily"  

Dec 16, 1993   "12 jointly ratify Rio"  

Jan 21, 1994   "UK VAT on fuel plan matches EU's CO2 tax"  

Jan 21, 1994   "CO2 tax falls off agenda"  

Feb 14, 1994   "Next EC/Gulf states meeting"  

April 11, 1994 "Still no movement on carbon/energy tax"  

April 11, 1994 "EC will not meet CO2 targets says first  

                monitoring report..."  

May 11, 1994   "UK remains aloof while 11 sign up to principle of 

                CO2/Energy Tax"  

June, 1994     "Franco-German push planned on stalled CO2/energy  


July 19, 1994  "Germany to Broaden CO2 cuts"  


European Energy Report, copyright The Financial Times Limited  


Date           Title  


July 9, 1993   "IEA's praises Belgiums coal wind-down policy"  

March 18, 1994 "Call for switch to oil-firing"  

July 8, 1994   "Minister calls for Euro CO2 Tax"  

July 22, 1994  "German study suggests solo CO2/energy tax would   

                be feasible and desirable"  


Europe Environment      copyright Europe Information Service  


Date           Title  


Sept 28, 1993  "Energy/CO2 Tax: Change of Tack Becoming Clearer"  

Nov 9, 1993    "Environment/Competitiveness:  Eco-Taxes  

                Championed as Growth Promoters"  

Nov 30, 1993   "Energy/CO2 Tax: Changes to Accomodate UK and  

                rekindle growth"  

May 17, 1994   "Germany and France Agree to Introduce Carbon Tax" 

Sept 13, 1994  "CO2/Energy Tax: Council Decides to use expedient  

                of excise duties"  

Sept 27, 1994  "Climate Strategy: Germany Forges Ahead on CO2 Tax 

                and Climate Change"  


Power Europe  


Date           Title  


Oct 8, 1993    "EC proposal for taxing energy and CO2"  

July 15, 1994  "EU proposal for a tax on energy and CO2"  






Go to Super Page