Editing Environmental tax (section)

=== Energy Taxes ===
The first type of ecotax, energy taxes, can vary greatly as they can be levied on the production, distribution, or consumption of energy sources, particularly fossil fuels like coal, oil, natural gas, and sometimes electricity.{{Cn|date=December 2024|reason=need cite that an electricity tax is ecotax or delete electricity}} They are often aimed at influencing energy consumption patterns and behaviors, promoting energy efficiency, and encouraging the transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. For example, they can influence energy consumption by levying larger ecotax rates on nonrenewable energy sources, which have a greater negative impact on the environment and contribute to high levels of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. This reduces the demand for unclean energy sources, and it can make renewable energy sources relatively more competitive, encouraging investment and consumption in clean energy technologies like solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power. Globally, the most commonly used environmental taxes fall in the category of “energy” taxes.  Energy taxes can be narrowed down further to “energy taxes for stationary purposes”, such as taxes on natural gas, coal and biofuels, “energy taxes for transport”, with petrol and diesel as the two most relevant examples, and lastly “greenhouse gasses”. Apart from the most common energy tax, carbon tax, another popular energy tax is the “coal excise tax” in the United States. The tax is levied on the producers, at the coal’s initial sale. Currently, the tax rate, after being increased by over 50% in 2020,  is $1.10 per ton for coal from subsurface mines and $0.55 per ton for coal from surface mines.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Table 177. Germany Non-tax revenue, capital revenue and grants, Table 178. Greece Non-tax revenue, capital revenue and grants |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/426004265887 |access-date=2024-04-22 |doi=10.1787/426004265887 }}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=December 2024|reason=is there really still a coal tax in USA?}}The revenue is generated for a more specific purpose, which is to fund the Black Lung Program and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. These entities pay benefits to miners who suffer from black lung disease. The tax continues to generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year despite the coal [[mining industry]] contracting, as the yearly revenue has shrunk from $644 million in 2008 to $177 million in 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SOI Tax Stats - Excise Tax Statistics {{!}} Internal Revenue Service |url=https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-excise-tax-statistics |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=www.irs.gov |language=en}}</ref> It is important to note that governments, when imposing ecotaxes for the central purpose of revenue,  generally tend to prefer energy taxes when levying environmental taxes due to the fact that energy demand tends to be quite inelastic in the short run, meaning that the government can use such taxes to gain immense revenue. This revenue can be used to reduce the budget deficit, where the majority of it goes to the general fund. However, the revenue earned can also be used to subsidize positive externality generating activities, which is called the “double dividend” of environmental tax.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Goulder |first=Lawrence H. |date=1995-08-01 |title=Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495 |journal=International Tax and Public Finance |language=en |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=157–183 |doi=10.1007/BF00877495 |issn=1573-6970}}</ref> Furthermore, these taxes can reduce deadweight losses caused by negative externalities. For such reasons, many economists support energy taxes along with Environmentalists, where activists often highlight the importance of energy taxes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impact of climate change, while economists highlight the benefits of the taxes on the economy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tan |first1=Zhe |last2=Wu |first2=Yufeng |last3=Gu |first3=Yifan |last4=Liu |first4=Tingting |last5=Wang |first5=Wei |last6=Liu |first6=Xiaomin |date=2022-01-01 |title=An overview on implementation of environmental tax and related economic instruments in typical countries |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621038658 |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |volume=330 |pages=129688 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129688 |bibcode=2022JCPro.33029688T |issn=0959-6526}}</ref> Opponents, however, argue such taxes increase the cost of daily necessities, which harm the average consumer, especially those under the poverty line.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Energy Tax: What It Is, How It Works, Other Purposes |url=https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/energy-tax.asp |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=Investopedia |language=en}}</ref> Additionally, a strong argument against energy taxes is that they can be counterproductive, as it may encourage producers who are being taxed to relocate to countries in which there are weaker, or nonexistent energy taxes. This would negatively impact the domestic economy, as well as the climate, as a result of overambitious energy taxes. This is known as carbon leakage.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wingender |first1=Philippe |last2=Misch |first2=Florian |date=2021 |title=Revisiting Carbon Leakage |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4026406 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4026406 |issn=1556-5068}}</ref>{{Better cite|reason=The current source is a working paper. Has the research been finished and published?|date=December 2024}}