This is the headline from a Guardian article. The article is an interesting spin on Gurria’s 15 years at the head of the OECD. I worked with him in BIAC from 2006 to 2012, he’s a nice person in my experience. But OECD hasn’t really taken the lead in pushing this agenda forward, perhaps constrained by the attitude of its biggest member, the US under both Obama and Trump.
I wrote a blog questioning why the OECD wasn’t working on the taxation of aviation and the tax subsidies which it enjoys. “Why is the OECD not reviewing the taxation of aviation?” I’d asked insiders why the work wasn’t being done and they pointed to a lack of funding and “more important” projects.
The OECD is perfectly positioned to work on this subject. The zero rating of airline tickets and the exemption from fuel duty for airline fuel clearly sit within the OECD expertise. The issue of passenger duty also would fit. It is an obviously international issue in both tax and carbon.
So, if the OECD wants to “Put a big fat price on carbon”, why doesn’t it do this work on the taxing of a form of emissions which is often discretionary? On removing this carbon subsidy?
Instead that quote looks like a piece of greenwash. Do we want to put a big, fat price on all carbon? On domestic heating for instance? Or does the OECD lean towards taxation because it is part of their mandate, whereas regulation, which may be more suitable for some emissions, is more of a national competence.
© Chris Lenon and http://www.zerocarbonourchoice.com 2020-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Chris Lenon and www.zerocarbonourchoice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.