Abatement costs in response to the Swedish charge on nitrogen oxide emissions

Nordic perspectives on the Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone

“…54-5.50 1993 ). The good results were confirmed in the Isaksson (2005) evaluation of the period 1992-1996, which furthermore estimated that costs of administering the tax have been very low (0.2-0.3 % of total revenue). Another interesting finding was that 30 % of the measures implemented at the plants obtained emission reductions at zero cost or even at a profit.…”

“…According to Isaksson (2005) there is not much empirical evidence to support this, but experience with the Swedish NO X tax might add to our knowledge on this topic.…”

“…However, these plants only represented approx. 5 % of all airborne NO X emissions in Sweden (Isaksson 2005 . It is expected that the raised tax level will cut emissions by 3,000-5,000 tonne per year (Ministry of Environment 2008b).…”

“…However, 'lowhanging fruit' do indeed exist. Isaksson (2005), moreover, estimates marginal abatement cost functions for the plants. The variable descriptions and statistics are presented in the tables below.…”

“…Furthermore, policy instruments targeted towards other pollutants, such as CO 2 , may have unintended side effects on NO X emissions. According to Isaksson (2005) certain NO X reducing measures may lead to greater emission of other air pollutants. Needless to say, however, the complexity involved in carrying out reliable ex post evaluation should not prevent those countries that have implemented policy instruments targeted at air pollution from performing this kind of evaluation.…”