The public want green taxes, but will the government deliver?

This post by was originally published on Business Green.

Tax is one of the most powerful tools the government has at its disposal to address the challenges of the 21st century. In combination with the right regulation, targets and strategies, taxes could be used to shape a sustainable economy, giving people and businesses alike the incentives they need to do the right thing.

But, so far, the government has been hesitant to test the potential of tax for this. Taxes with a positive environmental impact account for only seven per cent of UK tax revenue (the majority coming from fuel duties). And these, in any case, are too often countered by tax breaks that work against the government’s stated environmental aims. In fact, the National Audit Office recently identified five such tax reliefs that together cost the government £17bn in lost revenue each year.

The largest of these perverse subsidies is the reduced rate of VAT on fossil fuel and power for domestic use, which exists on the grounds of preventing fuel poverty. But making it as cheap as possible for everyone across society to burn gas is not a sensible approach: ending the subsidy and protecting the poor through a combination of improving housing stock, helping low income households move to sustainable heating and targeted redistribution would be much more effective. The wrong incentives are found in other ways in the application of VAT. Too often it discourages activities that would lead to a greener, healthier society, like retrofitting buildings or switching to low carbon heating, while encouraging the opposite, a cycle of demolition and new build and the continued burning of subsidised fossil fuels.

And VAT is just one example where the tax system falls short. Too often, the costs of climate change and nature’s decline are not reflected in the price of materials, fuels and products that are driving destruction. In other words, people and businesses are not getting the right financial signals to steer sustainable choices. But, it turns out they’d overwhelmingly like them.

This spring, for our TransformTax project, Green Alliance has been working with the research agency BritainThinks to understand public attitudes to greening the tax system. The representative survey of more than 2,000 people that BritainThinks carried out in March has shown great enthusiasm for the idea: six in ten support the general principles that tax should be used to make environmentally damaging behaviour more expensive and beneficial behaviours less expensive, while only one in ten opposes this approach.

We asked about some specific tax reforms that the government could develop to deliver environmental benefits and were surprised at the high level of support for each of the ideas we presented. We asked about greening the VAT system (in part to address some of the perversities mentioned), about implementing carbon taxes on producers and consumers, and about creating new material taxes to reduce high impact material use and drive up the use of recycled content in products. For each of these, a majority said they were good ideas and only between five and 12 per cent said they weren’t.

The outlier was road pricing, though even with that, people were more likely to think it was a good idea (37 per cent) than a bad one (28 per cent). This suggests Treasury policy makers should think hard (but sill urgently) about how such tax reform can be made fair and acceptable, laying the groundwork for replacing those fuel duties that make up the bulk of the current environmental tax base and that will dwindle as petrol and diesel cars become less common.

In fact, our results show that, across the board, support for green taxes is not unconditional. The proportion of people that said specific reforms were ‘very good’ ideas was much smaller than those that said the ideas were ‘good’. And over a quarter stayed neutral on all options.

The government, therefore, needs to be very careful about new tax design and communicating the reasons for change. It should always be clear why taxes are being used, why they are the best option (because they aren’t always), and how they are being tailored to make them appropriate to the circumstances in which they are applied. Any regressive outcome must be prevented or mitigated by commensurate government action.

This survey surprised us. We wanted to know the baseline appetite for green tax reform to inform our TransformTax project. What the results showed, in fact, was that the public is already ahead of the government on this and support for green reforms to the tax system is strong. With plans for a green recovery underway, the Treasury should finally start transforming the UK’s outdated tax system to meet government priorities and help businesses and individuals contribute to a more sustainable future. In its forthcoming Net Zero Review, it has the perfect opportunity to signal how it intends to achieve this.


  • The public want green taxes?

    Are you sure.
    Are you really, really sure?

    …..because I think the public will be very surprised that the Green Alliance want a 300% increase in the tax on their gas bills at home.. (5% VAT to 20% VAT)

    Politicians should be careful listening to these type of surveys (very carefully worded) as the public may backlash against the politicians when they realise. See the recent ‘meat’ taxes proposed, presumably backed up by all sorts of surveys (and CCC etc). yet the idea was squashed by Boris Johnson, the same day, the idea was floated in the Times.

    can you imagine Labour politicians going after the Tories (20% VAt on gas, or meat) accusing them of pushing pensioners into fuel poverty, warm Home and Hot Water tax… they will call it (or worse) – of course Labour also support NetZero, so opportunism on their part..

    • Our survey was meant to establish how people feel about the principles of greening of the tax system – making environmentally damaging activities more expensive and environmentally beneficial activities less expensive.

      What we’ve advocated for when it comes to VAT on domestic gas is a better approach to decarbonising heating and tackling fuel poverty. So, while the lower rate of VAT on domestic should be ended, it should only be done in conjunction with measures and funding to make sure people have easy to heat and warm homes. See our previous report:

      Current government policy ‘protects the poor’ by making it cheap for them, and everyone else, to burn high carbon fuels. The approach means that the benefits in cash terms overwhelmingly accrue to wealthier people, with no incentive to switch to low or no carbon heating systems. It would be better to end the subsidy in conjunction with investing the revenue gained in energy efficiency and low carbon heating for those on low incomes, so they can have comfortable homes without damaging the planet.

      A substantial body of evidence shows that it is possible to end the lower rate VAT on household energy, while benefiting the majority of low income households, if appropriately designed redistributive packages are used. See, for example: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2013, ‘Designing carbon taxation to protect low income households’; Institute of Fiscal Studies, 2013, ‘Household energy use in Britain: a distributional analysis’; and A Advani and G Stoye, June 2017, ‘Cheaper, greener and more efficient: rationalising UK carbon prices’, in Fiscal Studies, volume 38, issue 2

  • The public would like green taxes just as long as other (preferably richer) people pay them I suspect. I am notoriously cynical though but imagine governments realised that rainforests could be carefully used in situ without wrecking them so helped poorer countries to develop while conserving valuable habitat (see E O Wilson’s The Diversity of Life). The initial request for support and investment falls on stony ground so they put 2p on higher tax rates and cause a storm of outrage.

    More targeted taxes might be more sensible but could still misfire. Reducing cattle and sheep numbers might be sensible but needs major investment up front, geographical targeting, alternatives to by-products like manure, a commitment to conservation and existing stocks of beef, lamb and dairy to be eaten. If a cull were sensible or just occurred (see Shetland 2007 – 5000 healthy sheep killed but mostly wasted) then the resulting meat and offal should be eaten too. The obvious ideas of beef / lamb taxes and/or cutting demand are the wrong way round and a cop-out; they could misfire badly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s