• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

    BEATY, LIPSEY and ELGIE
    The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

    Ross Beaty, Richard Lipsey and Stewart Elgie

    Contributed to The Globe and Mail

    Published Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2014 6:00AM EDT

    Last updated Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2014 6:00AM EDT
    Ross Beaty is chairman of Pan American Silver Corp. and Alterra Power; Richard Lipsey is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University; Stewart Elgie is professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa, and chair of Sustainable Prosperity.

    When Mark Twain wrote, “Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story,” he could have been describing Canada’s current climate policy debate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly claims that a carbon tax would “destroy jobs and growth.” Yet the evidence from the province that actually passed such a tax – British Columbia – tells a different story.

    EDITORIAL CARTOON
    Editorial cartoons for July, 2014

    The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that B.C.’s policy has been a real environmental and economic success after six years. Far from a being a “job killer,” it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon-constrained world.

    B.C.’s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. “Revenue-neutral” by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

    The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs.

    At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years. And the evidence points to the carbon tax as the major driver of these B.C. gains.

    Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

    With these impressive results, B.C.’s carbon tax has gained widespread global praise as a model for the world – from organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank and The Economist. But in the rest of Canada, it is less heralded, which is a shame. Because when you look beyond the political rhetoric and examine the facts, B.C.’s experience offers powerful, positive lessons for Canada.

    In particular, it shows that Canada can be competitively ambitious in shaping a 21st century economy that internalizes the real costs of pollution. And that is important, because carbon and other emissions from burning fossil fuels impose heavy costs on us all – as B.C. knows well. The mountain pine beetle infestation, resulting from warming winters, has devastated the province’s interior forest industry, closing mills and costing thousands of jobs. Similarly, air pollution, caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, costs thousands of lives and more than $8-billion a year to Canada’s economy. These problems will only get worse if we don’t get serious about tackling the causes of carbon emissions.

    B.C.’s example shows that we can do that, while also building a prosperous economy, if we use smart policies. And it’s not alone in doing so. Both Alberta and Quebec, for example, have also put a price on carbon emissions, using different policy approaches. All three provinces offer instructive, made-in-Canada lessons for spurring clean innovation, advancing energy efficiency, and preparing Canada’s economy to compete with other nations that are already making this shift.

    Canada has a history of taking pragmatic, far-sighted policy action to meet global economic challenges, like free trade, deficit fighting or the financial crisis. The shift to a low-carbon economic future poses a similar challenge. With such strong evidence of how to meet it from within our own borders, it’s time to set aside the stories and act.

    #2
    Maybe we should start using rail more effectively for both the movement of goods and people.

    Just imagine the reduction then.

    Comment


      #3
      So what jobs did it make other than a fee office jobs to collect tax? And how is the air cleaner they haven't done anything?

      Comment


        #4
        Well that's what I d like to know? Did people drive less or trade in vehicles for better mileage ones or what?
        I don t see how they could measure any of that stuff, if they sold less gas was it because the economy stalled or where people more conscious driving habits, and even if they were how the hell does anyone measure what that did to the long term global temperature? of which I don t believe they can even accurately do that.

        Comment


          #5
          Just confirms how propagandists can produce unsubstantiated drivel and get it published. The "Globe and Mail" must be desperate. Chuck-Chuck, where is your brain?

          Comment


            #6
            Can someone explain the process of measuring carbon plus and minus?

            And climate change? As well.


            I don't get it.

            Everyday there are highs and lows ....some go back 80 years or as far back as records were kept.

            The more it changes the more it stays the same?

            Comment


              #7
              So with the additional cost of about $40,000 per tractor/combine/sprayer for def emissions to eliminate c02 we are to pay additional carbon tax on fuel that our equipment has already eliminated?
              So how as farmers do we reduce the amount of fuel we use now ? Go back to horses ?
              What do you plan to do chucky on your farm?

              Comment


                #8
                Chuck2 this article on thetyee.ca/News/2015/05/11-BC-Cli..talks about how carbon emissions went down from 2007-2012 about 6 percent. A year later they had gone back up 2.4 percent to 63 million tonnes. I would say the initial drop was due to the 2008 recession. It looks to me like there are conflicting opinions on the success of BC's carbon tax. Have a good day:-)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by furrowtickler View Post
                  So with the additional cost of about $40,000 per tractor/combine/sprayer for def emissions to eliminate c02 we are to pay additional carbon tax on fuel that our equipment has already eliminated?
                  So how as farmers do we reduce the amount of fuel we use now ? Go back to horses ?
                  What do you plan to do chucky on your farm?

                  People like chucky do not/can not answer questions like that because their software doesn't support it.

                  All they are capable of is repeating the factoids which are part of their programming.

                  "fac·toid
                  ˈfakˌtoid/
                  noun
                  noun: factoid; plural noun: factoids

                  North American
                  a brief or trivial item of news or information.
                  - an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

                  example: anthropogenic global warming

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Also if it is so successful why does the BC NDP claim carbon emissions are rising and will continue to rise into the future unless there is a drastic change to BC's carbon pricing plan.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by burnt View Post
                      People like chucky do not/can not answer questions like that because their software doesn't support it.

                      All they are capable of is repeating the factoids which are part of their programming.

                      "fac·toid
                      ˈfakˌtoid/
                      noun
                      noun: factoid; plural noun: factoids

                      North American
                      a brief or trivial item of news or information.
                      - an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

                      example: anthropogenic global warming

                      More inconvenient facts for the wealth redistribution fans:

                      During the decade Harper was PM, Canada's GHG emissions actually dropped.....so why must the drama teacher add extra carbon tax pain?!

                      Canada is already carbon neutral or possibly CARBON NEGATIVE!!

                      Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace is totally against a carbon tax and likes to point out CO2 is necessary for all plant life.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The article mentions a drop of 16% of fuel use, I would assume this data is based on fuel purchased. A lot of BC's population is concentrated close to the U.S. border, has anyone studied how many more cross boarder trips there are to fill their fuel tank. I would be willing to bet that accounts for a great deal of the drop in fuel purchases.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
                          The article mentions a drop of 16% of fuel use, I would assume this data is based on fuel purchased. A lot of BC's population is concentrated close to the U.S. border, has anyone studied how many more cross boarder trips there are to fill their fuel tank. I would be willing to bet that accounts for a great deal of the drop in fuel purchases.
                          Strong majority live very close to US border.

                          So in other words, more fuel is being burned to fill up at fuel stations further away......talk about progress.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Some Canadians who live near the US border in other provinces also fill up in the US, carbon tax or not. Taxes on fuel in the US have always been lower. Unless you have hard data on the number of trips and whether the carbon tax was a factor you are just speculating.

                            Lots of people in Vancouver don't even own cars. I would say the number of trips into the US has really dropped off in the last few months. If you are just going down to fill up you are wasting alot of time and money especially to cross at a very busy crossing south of Vancouver.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The cross-border shopping tells a tale far greater than merely buying a tank of fuel.

                              Many border-dwelling consumers leave a significant amount of their income is the US border towns/cities.

                              Not hard to guess why - the lower prices achieved through much higher American market volumes and far lower taxes make the trip more than worthwhile.

                              Thew higher taxes reflect the cost of our social programs, to which we deeply addicted.

                              So when the driver is jolted with another slap-in-the-face carbon tax, the trip just gets that much more profitable.

                              So, of course, it looks like the carbon tax lowered consumption and the cash-grabbing government says 'look our tax is working!'
                              Last edited by burnt; Mar 7, 2016, 18:24.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...