It is also positive that it stresses that municipalities and energy companies have great opportunities to contribute, for example, by reducing food waste, increasing the utsorteringen of organic waste and in other ways act for increasing resource efficiency. Previously energy companies, for example, in Today’s Society pointed out that their member companies do not may affect the amount of waste. It has also been a one-sided focus on policy instruments must be directed towards the producers. Everything to avoid the policy instruments in the own industry.
Obviously, the municipalities and the energy companies affect both the recycling rates and waste quantities. The plan for the disposal of waste and collect and treat the waste, it is also affected by the cost of different courses of action. Thus, it is highly likely that they in their behaviour also is influenced by a tax on the incineration of waste.
the conclusions of the Inquiry that the tax would not have a controlling effect are based on assumptions about the market conditions and pricing prevailing for the moment. These assumption are not convincing, but seems more like a degree of self-government from the prospective and reluctant taxpayers in the expert group. But, above all, need economic instruments such as a tax is seen as a more long-term signal.
The ruling impact cannot only be assessed on the basis of the situation prevailing at the moment. The tax is a signal that it will pay to act in the direction toward the established goals of increased recycling and reduced waste. And it is a signal that it will cost more to continue, without major efforts to send their waste for incineration. It is wise to act early in the signal. Others do not react until the more coercive and costly policy instruments are introduced.
If you are sure on what exactly needs to be done, one could instead have introduced detailed rules, for example, for which the waste was taken to incineration. A tax provides an opportunity for adaptation based on local and market conditions.
It is also not intended that a tax should be control so powerful that it means dramatic changes in the costs of burning or drastic changes in the waste streams. Instruments are also needed earlier in a product’s life cycle. But a tax on the incineration of waste would be a supporting force, which reinforces the impact of other policy instruments. To target policy instruments in the treatment of waste has proved very successful in the past.
the Ban on the landfill and the tax on the landfill together had effects that strongly favoured in particular the incineration of waste. Since then, the incineration of waste the treatment method, which represents the lowest step in the waste hierarchy, for several types of waste.
There is a convincing argument for a tax on the incineration of waste would have a controlling effect. The crucial question is whether the tax is needed. As it stands, we will not achieve the set objectives for the reduction of waste and increased recycling. It points to a strong need of policy instruments. The Swedish waste management and the energy companies has, so far, in their eagerness to avoid a tax, provided that the measures unilaterally implemented by the producers and made themselves as unable to influence the situation. If you want to show that a tax is not needed, it is better to show what industry will do for the reduction of waste and increased resource efficiency.
