Proposed kilometer tax criticized by Swedish Forest Industries Federation

July 22, 2010 by timbercommunity

The leftwing and green opposition parties must provide clear indications about the proposed new kilometer tax. Marie S Arwidson CEO of Swedish forest industries federation criticize kilometer tax 2 months before the Swedish election in Dagens Nyheter 22nd July one of the biggest Magazines in Sweden. The red-green parties have added a number of infrastructure proposals which are important for export industry. But these new proposals end up in the shadow of the kilometer tax.

Among the questions she asks in the article:
What is the purpose with the kilometer tax? How big will it be? Is it at all feasible?

The discussions about the impact of transport on the environment are widespread in the forest industry. The signature transport and the environment has formulated a forestry industry memorandum of understanding in this area. Forest industry is the largest carrier through the purchase of transport services by road, rail and by boat. Near 70 percent of pulp and paper exports and 60 percent of timber exports are transported by ship. The rest goes by rail and truck. The Swedish road network covers close to 550 000 kilometers, of which 310 000 kilometer is a forest.

The red and green oposition parties in April announced a major investment in infrastructure. It's about high-speed railways, urban public transport and cycling. The lots also invests in projects in the debate is far more anonymous, but who are also enormously important for industry and exports. Examples are the North Bothnia Line, East Coast Line and provide for funding of the National Investment Plan. Yet the reactions were from industry and transport sectors depending cool.

The reception will of the kilometer tax. This tax is highlighted by the red-green above all as a financial measure, where a high level of taxation and an expected income of the tax held. The highlights probably misleading also as a Climate Action, which represents a significant achievement to shift freight to other modes. The actual design of the tax is still open.

Kilometer tax would be costly to industry and society and are unlikely to provide the conversion or environmental gains according to Swedish forest industries federation.

The tax is not pollution but from a distance, and the network has not capacity to deal with it as the day goes on the road. What is more worrying is that it creates an uncertainty about how the red and green infrastructure investments will be funded. If a kilometer is not possible to design as the red and green thinking, how does this affect the red-green promises on infrastructure? What will go out first?

No less than 90 percent of all freight transported by road is at the distance of 300 kilometers. For the forest industry's very high volume wood are the distances less than 100 kilometers. Here is railroad rarely an option . A kilometer tax will in first place only increase costs.

The red-green has also argued that one solution to differentiate the tax geographically. The question is whether the EU accepts this solution for the same purpose. How should a regional variation look like?