Although empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach in curbing environmental degradation is somewhat divided, a growing consensus suggests that when implemented well, these policies can be powerful tools to achieving sustainable environment.
In contrast to the 'command and control' approach to environmental regulation – such as uniform standards and licensing requirements – economic tools like pollution charges, tradable permits, and taxes are seen as more efficient. These tools provide businesses with the choice to either pay and pollute or invest in cleaner practices, aligning their interests with policy objectives.
A call for comprehensive action
Vietnam's introduction of an emissions fee reflects a proactive stance on environmental protection. However, the complexities of this endeavour cannot be overlooked. Striking a balance between encouraging behaviour change and avoiding undue burdens on individuals and businesses remains a formidable challenge.
Although high fees might impact companies, particularly those reliant on high emissions, resulting in job losses and social consequences, research suggests that low charges have also proven ineffective in reducing emissions. This is primarily because they lack economic incentives for emission reduction.
In comparison to Ukraine's ($US1.03 per ton) and Poland's ($US0.08 per ton) carbon tax rates as two European countries with the lowest rates, Vietnam's proposed annual emissions fee of VND3 million (US$126.58) with a variable rate ranging from VND500 ($US0.02) to VND800 ($US0.03) per ton appears relatively low.
Nevertheless, the strategy of starting with a modest rate and gradually increasing it over time aligns with the approach adopted by many nations when introducing emission levies. For instance, in 2012, Japan introduced its “tax for climate change mitigation” at approximately $US1.21 per ton of CO2. This rate was subsequently raised to $US1.90 and $2.78 in 2014 and 2016, respectively.