Pakistan resists IMF's carbon levy
Listen to article
Pakistan on Friday pushed back against the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s demand to impose a carbon levy on petroleum products, coal, and internal combustion engine cars, which the global lender is advocating to discourage the use of fossil fuels.
The IMF has proposed that the existing petroleum levy be increased from Rs60 per litre to Rs70 per litre over three years, starting with Rs3 per litre in the first year, according to government sources. The additional revenue generated from the levy may be used for activities to promote green energy, according to the proposal.
Sources said the IMF also wants the existing federal excise duty rates on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars to be increased, with the additional duty being treated as a carbon levy.
Discussions were held on Friday between an IMF team and Pakistani officials from the Ministry of Petroleum, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Climate Change, Ministry of Industries, and the Federal Board of Revenue.
On the same day, the government appointed Ali Pervaiz Malik as the new Petroleum Minister, while his predecessor, Dr Musadiq Malik, was appointed as Climate Change Minister.
Sources said Pakistani authorities were not receptive to the IMF's demand and raised concerns about the use of funds generated in the name of climate protection, as well as federation-provincial issues.
There were also concerns about imposing a carbon levy on coal, which falls under provincial jurisdiction, they added.
Unlike a tax, which is shared with the provinces under the National Finance Commission, collections from a levy remain outside the distributable pool. However, in the case of a carbon levy, half of the revenue must be allocated to the provinces, according to sources.
Sources also said the FBR supported the proposal to increase federal excise duty rates on cars. Cars in Pakistan are already heavily taxed, with taxation accounting for 36% to 45% of the total price, depending on the variant.
The government currently imposes advance income tax, sales tax, federal excise duty, and hefty registration fees on new cars.
The IMF had also raised the issue of a carbon levy last month during negotiations for the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF), an IMF loan package designed to support climate-vulnerable nations. Pakistan is seeking over $1 billion from the IMF under this facility.
Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb stated this week that disbursements under the RSF will be linked to actual climate-related spending by the country.
One of the resilience conditions is the imposition of a carbon levy, which the lenders want Pakistan to apply to internal combustion engine vehicles and fossil fuels.
According to government estimates, 10% of total carbon dioxide emissions originate from the transport sector, and a shift to cleaner vehicle sources will require massive funding and efforts.
The Engineering Development Board is in the process of finalising a five-year New-Energy Vehicles (NEVs) policy. The ministry's initial estimates indicate that Pakistan will need at least Rs155 billion in additional funding by 2030 to replace combustion engine cars and motorcycles with clean-fuel-based alternatives.
Nearly 80% of Pakistan's imported oil is consumed by the transport sector. Converting to cleaner energy vehicles could save foreign exchange reserves, but the transition is expensive and will require subsidies to lower vehicle costs and promote new infrastructure, including tax waivers and concessions, sources said.
The IMF's proposal suggests that revenue from the carbon levy should be used to offset the high cost of two-wheeler and three-wheeler electric vehicles.
According to the Engineering Development Board, traditional two-wheeler motorcycles are up to 100% cheaper than new-energy two-wheelers, while new-energy three-wheelers are up to 123% more expensive.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government aims to ensure that by 2030, up to 90% of new purchases of two- and three-wheelers are based on renewable energy sources.
New technology-based four-wheeler cars are estimated to be 65% more expensive than combustion engine vehicles. The government aims for at least 30% of new car purchases by 2030 to be based on new technologies, sources said.
According to the World Bank, a carbon tax could be beneficial to Pakistan's development from multiple perspectives. Pakistan imports nearly one-third of its energy in the form of oil, coal, and re-gasified liquefied natural gas (RLNG) at enormous cost, contributing significantly to the country's chronic fiscal stress, it added.
Pakistan recently signed a $1.2 billion deal to buy Saudi oil on deferred payments. The facility was secured to meet balance of payments needs and will be used to purchase Saudi oil.
The government is also planning to introduce National Vehicle Emissions Efficiency Standards aimed at promoting newer, more efficient vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Dialogue, not aggression
Listen to article In an endeavour to achieve a new-normal relationship between India and Pakistan, the former Foreign Minister has taken a leap-forward in his approach. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari's suggestion that sleuths from ISI and RAW should sit down for brain-storming to address the pestering dispute of terrorism is worth-appreciating. In fact, that is the way to go as the warring factions need to set in some semblance in their distrustful ties, and that can only happen when stakeholders from the security domain huddle in for a sincere de-escalation effort. The PPP leader's idea must galvanise into the next orbit of thought-process, and New Delhi and Islamabad must put behind their ulterior conventions to make a stride in the right direction. The precedent that DGMOs and NSAs had off and on been meeting to iron out grievances, especially after skirmishes and eventualities, should make a headway in intelligence bosses spectrum too, and there is no harm in giving it a try for the wider sake of confidence building measures and congeniality. Pakistan's thrust that outstanding disputes with India should be resolved through diplomacy is laudable. The stance has won laurels in the US and Russia, as well as the UN, where Islamabad had sent in its emissaries to convince the world community that India should opt for a policy of dialogue and restraint, rather than unilateralism or intimidation. The Pakistani delegates made a forceful point by telling the US legislators that Delhi should exhibit respect for International Law, UNSC resolutions and the Indus Water Treaty, and desist from war-mongering to appease its domestic agenda at the cost of regional peace and security. Islamabad's synopsis, as reiterated by Bilawal, that there is no military solution, and only diplomacy and dialogue can deliver lasting peace in South Asia must resonate in world capitals. It is imperative that the Kashmir dispute be resolved and the cross-border terrorism enigma be sorted out once and for all by huddling of heads and hearts. Let there be a perpetual de-escalation and not merely a thaw.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The dilemma of the right strategic choice
Listen to article Right or wrong, fallacious or prudent, assertive or devastative, India has announced its intent. She calls it the 'new normal' and call it what we may, she is unlikely to desist from it till Modi dispensation is in place — unless someone can hammer sense into this ludicrous mindset. Clearly, she has chosen to challenge the prevailing deterrence regime around nuclear capability on both sides. Her army chief declared in his public interactions at the Shangrila Dialogue that there was space for a conventional war under the nuclear overhang without really testing the threshold. Problem? Threshold is both numerative as well as perceptive. It translates thus: If and when India attributes a 'terror' event on its territory to Pakistan she will respond by attacking Pakistan in the name of neutralising terror network and its sponsors. This does not take into consideration international obligations which bind nations to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. Neither will India honour the sanctity of international borders under agreed covenants of international law. In fact, India will violate those norms to assert its strategic dominance over Pakistan rubbishing any respect and deference in compliance of the internationally recognised principles of peaceful coexistence and neighbourly courtesy. India will go to war against Pakistan every time a 'terror event' takes place on its soil. That leaves Pakistan with only one option: defend against this aggression and fight back as evinced in the four-day war. I believe, in doing so, India is probing the limits of the space for conventional war in a nuclear environment. She began with a proclaimed 2016 surgical strike, to the Balakot 2019 expedition, to her most recent misadventure. In each case Pakistan acted with restraint hoping that a minimum defensive effort will enthuse some rationality to Indian juvenility. India may also be aiming to 'normalise' sporadic Indian outburst, 'immunise' Pakistani sentiment to India's presumptive outrage, and inure sensitivity to a perceived nuclear threshold. This is playing with fire. With seventeen simultaneous insurgencies enveloping one-third of India — most in the east and north-east, farthest from Pakistan — how she determines that an event may have had its roots in Pakistan is perhaps the hubris that India bestows upon itself. It is at best childish, juvenile and devoid of a mature, responsible and stately act by an entity that aspires to a global mantle and recognition. No amounts of international entreaties to jointly investigate an event to determine responsibility can cut with India's instinctive bias to only label Pakistan. Intrinsically, it remains a system reeking of intense racial and ethnic hatred as a means to societal cleansing and remains blind to civility. It betrays presumed hubris and ethnic exceptionalism. She mimics Israel without realising she is not Israel surrounded by ravaged, listless and emaciated nations in the middle east. How may India eventually act will be India's choice. Pakistan will be forced to react, at worst in a riposte or a counteroffensive. Preemption, Pakistan's preferred option as an opening gambit, had to be forsaken under the strategic environment of nuclear parity. Were Pakistan to initiate hostilities in any preemption - unless a full-scale attack by India seemed imminent - it would puncture its own narrative of the much-propounded deterrence stability. India's recent pronunciations in defiance of operational logic and trumping common-sense forces upon Pakistan the dilemma of thwarting India's ill-conceived intent and misplaced aggression. India's declaration imposes the reality of a continuous, perpetual war over South Asia with its own hair-trigger dynamics. Pakistan's response in the four-day war was exceptional in the air and restrained on the ground — a little less quid pro quo, measured and calibrated. The reason was obvious: the PAF had wrought such damage on the Indian air force in the very first hour of the hostilities that it outweighed all else that India may have intended to do. And although Pakistan had declared that an offensive will respond to India's arrogated right to violate its borders with a direct attack, it was still meant to be proportionate and non-escalatory. It came some ninety hours later but by then its intensity, spread and volume had enhanced considerably. India upped the ante with a foolish last gasp impact by unleashing a missile barrage against PAF bases and infrastructure. It achieved little but paid a heavier price in the losses that she suffered in Pakistan's return offensive. Is India smarting yet? Seems not when Modi claims in public gatherings that India was in pause and that a 'new normal' has been established and will stay in effect granting India the godly right to strike whenever and wherever she deemed necessary. Note the arrogance and the shamelessness, and the deficient sense of probity and responsibility of a global thug. This misplaced haughtiness justifies hubris and entitlement. This needs to be treated. If the international community will shy away from helping correct the conceptual malfeasance emerging in South Asia, it shall be Pakistan's weight to carry. And this is what Pakistan is currently grappling with — what will and should change India the way she imagines her presumptive preponderance in action and thought. The recipe is simple. Keep the level of pain and punishment, and shame - although it remains a subjective measure - above the tolerance level of the current Indian order. How do we get there? The menu of items we have on the inventory is exhaustive enough to create a mix that will deliver what is intolerable and will pain long enough, but it must of essence be wholesome, definitive and complete in effect. And we are not talking non-conventional yet except maybe a sprinkling to add intensity to excite the latency. Another DCA/OCA (Defensive/Offensive Counter Air - the air force guys know what I am talking about) to send the message across from enemy's excursion is a sine qua non. The offensive which should follow soon after should be sectorially substantive whether value or forced-oriented. Whether it shall be counterforce or countervalue, and in what mix from the available options is under consideration. Pakistan's conventional capability is sufficient to change the way India and Modi assume the arrogated role of a regional policeman with a sense of entitlement. But with the most recent swarm attack by Ukraine of Russia in different geographical locations, the fine division between conventional, unconventional and non-conventional has turned murkier. The decision points escalating from one level to the next are muddled into singular entity. In fact, the effect is almost simultaneous of all elements which earlier composed different strands and levels of capability. The whole spectrum is in play at all times which makes any miscalculation entirely devastating. That makes Jaishankar's call to Pakistan before India launched its attack on the May 6/7 night laughable and incredulous. If India does not desist from its declared recourse, Pakistan's punch must be substantive, focused and finite.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Bilawal calls for peace, says India must honour past treaties before dialogue
Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party and former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said on Thursday that Pakistan was ready to pursue peace with India but insisted that any meaningful engagement must begin with New Delhi honouring past agreements, particularly the Indus Waters Treaty. Speaking at the Middle East Institute in Washington, Mr Bhutto-Zardari said that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had constituted a delegation with a clear mission: to seek peace through dialogue and diplomacy with India. 'You might ask why we are here in Washington and not speaking to our adversary… they refuse to talk,' he said, pointing to India's persistent unwillingness to engage. The PPP chairman emphasised that while Pakistan is open to new arrangements, agreements, and even treaties with India, progress can only be made if India first honours its existing commitments. 'If our dialogue and diplomacy in pursuit of peace are to be successful… then surely they must first abide by the old treaties and take back their decision, viz-a-viz the Indus Water Treaty,' he said. He criticised the Indian government's attitude toward dialogue and cooperation, noting that it had declined Pakistan's calls for joint investigations into acts of terrorism, rejected former US President Donald Trump's offer to mediate, and continues to rebuff Pakistan's overtures. 'India has belligerently refused. They refused cooperation on terror — you saw it. The Prime Minister of Pakistan said let's have an investigation, they said no. They refuse mediation, they refuse dialogue,' said the PPP chairman. He warned that such a refusal to engage in diplomacy would only escalate tensions. 'All that means is there will be more terrorism, there will be more war, and there will be no peace.' He added that while the Indian government may be willing to condemn its people to a perpetual state of conflict, Pakistan would not follow suit. 'I refuse to damn my people, and I refuse to damn the people of India to this fate.' Bilawal said this is why the Pakistani delegation would continue travelling 'from capital to capital' with a simple and urgent message: 'We want peace, and we need your help.'
