94
M. P. Ramos and O. O. Chisari
(since a simultaneous move of all countries could help to stabilize the relative changes
in competitiveness), or by the migration of capital to other regions of the world, which
could limit or reverse the expected gains of an ETR.
Argentina and the CC Commitments
The tax structure of developing economies, such as Argentina’s, has historically
been more in the positive than in the normative field, because the tax designs calculated from more traditional microeconomic methodology have had to give ground
to macroeconomic imbalances, lobbies, exemptions for reasons of merit and income
distribution, evasion and avoidance. Consequently, when thinking of an ETR to face
CC issues, these structural particularities of Argentina have to be considered. This
is the first step towards an appropriate ETR.
The second step is to identify the causes that generate carbon emissions to choose
the right instrument to tackle both current and future emissions and even the stock
due to past emissions. According to the statistics of the CAIT (2015), permanent
flows in global GHG emissions are mainly linked to the (intermediate and final)
consumption of fossil fuels, with the energy sector accounting for more than 70% of
global emissions. The sub-sectors that use fossil energy mainly include electricity
generation, heating and transportation globally. This is followed by the agricultural
sector whose contribution to global emissions is between 14 and 11% (from 1990 to
2012) with a declining share since 2000.
The third step to think of an ETR for developing countries, such as Argentina,
is to put in perspective the relative CC responsibilities of each country, so that the
costly measures to be implemented become fair and equitable in the solution of this
global environmental problem. In this regard, we will see that the Latin American
countries have contributed little to the generation of the environmental liability and
that they are currently small GHG emitters compared to the rest of the world.
The statistics from the CAIT 2015 Climate Data Explorer provide evidence that
China, the USA and the European Union accounted for more than half of the global
emissions in 2012, as well as a glimpse of the small contributions of large Latin
American countries, such as Argentina (0.6%) and Brazil (1.4%), to them. The efforts
to reduce carbon emissions by each of the countries must be comparable to the
responsibility for the global damage that each of them causes, and, from this point of
view, the mitigation efforts undertaken by the “environmentally” small countries are
irrelevant if the big ones do not take the corresponding measures. If large countries
contribute to solving the problem of their carbon emissions on the basis of their
global damage, emissions from small countries could be more than compensated.
Nevertheless, the reverse solution is not enough. In line with this description, good
news comes from the ratification of the Paris Agreement, as more than 179 out
of 197 countries have ratified the agreement through voting and the approval of
their parliaments as at March 2019. Among them are the main emitters mentioned
previously, but not all.
M. P. Ramos and O. O. Chisari
(since a simultaneous move of all countries could help to stabilize the relative changes
in competitiveness), or by the migration of capital to other regions of the world, which
could limit or reverse the expected gains of an ETR.
Argentina and the CC Commitments
The tax structure of developing economies, such as Argentina’s, has historically
been more in the positive than in the normative field, because the tax designs calculated from more traditional microeconomic methodology have had to give ground
to macroeconomic imbalances, lobbies, exemptions for reasons of merit and income
distribution, evasion and avoidance. Consequently, when thinking of an ETR to face
CC issues, these structural particularities of Argentina have to be considered. This
is the first step towards an appropriate ETR.
The second step is to identify the causes that generate carbon emissions to choose
the right instrument to tackle both current and future emissions and even the stock
due to past emissions. According to the statistics of the CAIT (2015), permanent
flows in global GHG emissions are mainly linked to the (intermediate and final)
consumption of fossil fuels, with the energy sector accounting for more than 70% of
global emissions. The sub-sectors that use fossil energy mainly include electricity
generation, heating and transportation globally. This is followed by the agricultural
sector whose contribution to global emissions is between 14 and 11% (from 1990 to
2012) with a declining share since 2000.
The third step to think of an ETR for developing countries, such as Argentina,
is to put in perspective the relative CC responsibilities of each country, so that the
costly measures to be implemented become fair and equitable in the solution of this
global environmental problem. In this regard, we will see that the Latin American
countries have contributed little to the generation of the environmental liability and
that they are currently small GHG emitters compared to the rest of the world.
The statistics from the CAIT 2015 Climate Data Explorer provide evidence that
China, the USA and the European Union accounted for more than half of the global
emissions in 2012, as well as a glimpse of the small contributions of large Latin
American countries, such as Argentina (0.6%) and Brazil (1.4%), to them. The efforts
to reduce carbon emissions by each of the countries must be comparable to the
responsibility for the global damage that each of them causes, and, from this point of
view, the mitigation efforts undertaken by the “environmentally” small countries are
irrelevant if the big ones do not take the corresponding measures. If large countries
contribute to solving the problem of their carbon emissions on the basis of their
global damage, emissions from small countries could be more than compensated.
Nevertheless, the reverse solution is not enough. In line with this description, good
news comes from the ratification of the Paris Agreement, as more than 179 out
of 197 countries have ratified the agreement through voting and the approval of
their parliaments as at March 2019. Among them are the main emitters mentioned
previously, but not all.