Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
1 recomendación•545 vistas
Keynote Speaker and Policy Leaders Panel Mikael Skou Andersen
![The ”Porter hypothesis” at 20 - reflections from Europe ,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mikaelskouandersen20-110330135341-phpapp02/85/mikael-skou-andersen-presentation-the-porter-hypothesis-at-20-can-environmental-regulation-enhance-innovation-and-competitiveness-june-2010-1-320.jpg)
![What do we understand by ”competitiveness” ? ,[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010
Similar a Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010 (20)
Más de Sustainable Prosperity
Más de Sustainable Prosperity (20)
Último
Último (20)
Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010
- 4. Green innovation and demand: (Enevoldsen et. al. 2009)
- 5. Environmental tax reform (ETR) revenue as a share of GDP (1995-2003) Denmark 1,1% Finland 0,6% Germany 0,8% Netherlands 0,5% Sweden 0,9% UK (CCL) 0,1%
- 6. Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Germany % difference from baseline
- 7. Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark UK Germany Finland % difference
- 8. Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Slovenia UK Germany Finland % difference
- 9. Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden % difference
- 10. Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Netherlands Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden % difference
- 11. Effect of ETR on GHG emissions Denmark Netherlands Slovenia Germany Finland Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. UK % difference
- 12. The Effect of ETR on Employment Denmark UK Germany Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. % difference
- 13. Effect of ETR on GDP Denmark Netherlands Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. % difference
- 14. Without Revenue Recycling: Effect of ETR on GDP Denmark Netherlands Germany Finland Sweden % difference Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the no revenue recycling case. Source(s) : CE.
- 19. Thanks for your attention