Abstract

Despite their similarities, Scandinavian countries have adopted starkly different automobile tax regimes. The Danish system entails very high and convex tax rates with moderate CO₂ differentiation. In Norway, tax rates are high and convex with strong CO₂ differentiation and total exemptions for zero emission vehicles, even from value added tax. Sweden practices feebates – CO₂ dependent subsidization along with moderate taxation.

Relying on a disaggregate discrete choice model of automobile purchase, we simulate the demand for passenger cars as of 2016 in Norway under a set of conditions resembling, respectively, the Danish, Norwegian or Swedish fiscal incentives before and after recent reforms. In all cases, implications are derived in terms of energy technology market shares, average type approval CO₂ emission rates, and aggregate fiscal revenue.

The automobile taxation system is seen to have remarkable impacts on all three accounts. In essence, among the three jurisdictions examined, the Norwegian fiscal regime has by far the strongest CO₂ abatement effect. The Danish system is less effective in terms of CO₂ abatement, but provides twice as much government revenue. The Swedish feebate strategy is by far the least effective in terms of both CO₂ mitigation and revenue collection.

• Highlights

• Automobile taxation is a powerful greenhouse gas abatement instrument.

• Tax exemptions for battery electric cars accelerate their market uptake.

• The disparate experiences of the three Scandinavian countries are quite instructive.

摘要

尽管有相似之处，但斯堪的纳维亚国家采用了截然不同的汽车税收制度。丹麦系统需要非常高和凸的税率，并具有适度的 CO ₂差异。在挪威，税率高且凸，具有很强的 CO ₂差异化和零排放车辆完全免税，甚至免征增值税。瑞典实行费用减免——依赖于 CO ₂的补贴以及适度的税收。

依靠汽车购买的分解离散选择模型，我们模拟了挪威截至 2016 年的乘用车需求，其条件分别类似于近期改革前后的丹麦、挪威或瑞典的财政激励措施。在所有情况下，影响都来自能源技术市场份额、平均型式批准 CO ₂排放率和总财政收入。

汽车税收制度被认为对所有三个账户都有显着影响。实质上，在所考察的三个司法管辖区中，挪威的财政制度迄今为止具有最强的 CO ₂减排效果。_{丹麦系统在 CO 2}减排方面效果较差，但提供了两倍的政府收入。_{就 CO 2}减排和税收征收而言，瑞典的费用退税策略是迄今为止最不有效的。

• 强调

• 汽车税是一种强有力的温室气体减排工具。

• 电池电动汽车的免税政策加速了它们的市场占有率。

• 三个斯堪的纳维亚国家的不同经历颇具启发意义。