Confused on BC carbon tax success..

[furrowtickler]

Chucky has been flaunting the huge success of the carbon tax in B.C. , well there may be some leaks in the carbon scam ...

[Retired]

Furrow Can you flesh this out a little more so us slow people can see just what you are getting at.

[oneoff]

Flaws in Christy Clark’s claim that BC will pay double for carbon as Ontario

By Joan Bryden The Canadian Press
3
73




more
For a brief moment last Friday, it looked like B.C. Premier Christy Clark might scuttle Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's hopes of emerging from a day-long first ministers meeting with a pan-Canadian framework agreement to combat climate change.
For a brief moment last Friday, it looked like B.C. Premier Christy Clark might scuttle Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's hopes of emerging from a day-long first ministers meeting with a pan-Canadian framework agreement to combat climate change.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
- A A +
Listen
OTTAWA – For a brief moment last Friday, it looked like B.C. Premier Christy Clark might scuttle Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s hopes of emerging from a day-long first ministers meeting with a pan-Canadian framework agreement to combat climate change.


“You can’t have a national carbon tax where the westerners who produce the energy are paying double what the people in central Canada are paying to use the energy, in terms of an additional carbon tax,” Clark said outside the meeting on Dec. 9, 2016.

READ MORE: Saskatchewan’s Wall, B.C.’s Clark get premiers gathering off to fractious start

The sticking point was her insistence that Ontario and Quebec’s cap-and-trade market must impose a price on carbon emissions equivalent to provinces, such as B.C., that choose to impose a carbon tax.

On the face of it, there was no disputing Clark’s assertion that within five years, carbon-taxing provinces will be paying twice as much Ontario and Quebec.

And so, in a last-minute concession to mollify Clark, Trudeau agreed to have an independent expert panel evaluate the carbon pricing regime in 2020, when the rest of the country will have theoretically caught up to the $30 per tonne of emissions that is already imposed by British Columbia.

WATCH: B.C. Premier Christy Clark hopes carbon price deal can be done, but it must be fair for west


But environmental economists say it’s misleading and simplistic to compare only the price per tonne of emissions under the two very different methods of pricing carbon.

Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of “no baloney” to “full of baloney” (complete methodology below).

This one earns a ranking of “some baloney” – Clark’s assertion is partly accurate but important details are missing.



THE FACTS

B.C. currently imposes a carbon tax of $30 per tonne of emissions. Alberta will follow suit in the new year, with a $20 per tonne levy, rising to $30 per tonne in 2018.

That’s consistent with Trudeau’s climate agreement, under which provinces must impose either a carbon tax or adopt a cap-and-trade system by 2018. In those that don’t (Saskatchewan is likely to be the only hold-out), the federal government will unilaterally impose a carbon price, starting at $10 per tonne in 2018 and rising by $10 each year to $50 per tonne in 2022.

READ MORE: Earth on track to heat up to devastating levels by 2100, scientists say

Hence, in five years, the national price on carbon will be $30 per tonne – the same as B.C. and Alberta.

Quebec’s carbon market is currently trading permits for about $8 per tonne and is forecast to rise to $16 per tonne once Ontario fully joins Quebec and California in the Western Climate Initiative – in other words, roughly half what westerners will be paying.

WATCH: Will provinces make the new carbon tax revenue neutral?


So, in that sense, “there is some truth” to Clark’s assertion that westerners in energy-producing provinces will be paying twice as much as central Canadians, says Ottawa University environmental economist Nicholas Rivers, who holds the Canada research chair in climate and energy policy.

But that’s only part of a very complicated story.

“It’s a bit misleading to compare these two systems just on that metric,” Rivers says.
To understand why, one needs to understand how the two systems work.

READ MORE: Canadians suspicious Liberal carbon price plan will turn into a cash grab: Ipsos poll

A carbon tax is relatively straightforward: a levy is imposed by government on all or some carbon emitters for every tonne of emissions they produce. That levy is passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices for things like fuel.

In a cap-and-trade system, the market decides the price on carbon, which is also passed on to consumers.

As Rivers explains it, under cap-and-trade a government imposes a quota or cap on the amount of emissions it will allow and issues permits for those allowable emissions. Because there’s a limited number of permits, they acquire a value in the market as companies trade permits among themselves.

That value will depend on how stringent the emissions cap is. The lower the quota, the fewer the permits that are issued and, therefore, the higher their value becomes on the market.

THE EXPERTS

The objective of Trudeau’s pan-Canadian agreement is to meet a national target of reducing carbon emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, while giving premiers the flexibility to choose which method of carbon pricing is best suited to their individual provinces.

Because Ontario and Quebec have taken other policy steps to reduce emissions – such as Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired power plants, which Ontario consumers are also paying for in the form of skyrocketing electricity bills – Rivers says their emissions are on the way down. As a result, they can adopt a cap-and-trade system in which permits are relatively plentiful and, therefore, relatively cheap and still meet the emission reduction target.

READ MORE: BC agrees to national climate plan at first ministers’ meeting

Justin Trudeau announces framework for deal on climate change

Justin Trudeau announces framework for deal on climate change
Justin Trudeau announces framework for deal on climate change

‘Goal is to have Canada powered by 90 per cent clean energy by 2030’: Justin Trudeau
‘Goal is to have Canada powered by 90 per cent clean energy by 2030’: Justin Trudeau

Improving energy efficiency standards and clean energy infrastructure part of framework for climate deal
Improving energy efficiency standards and clean energy infrastructure part of framework for climate deal

‘It’s an economic necessity’: Trudeau on framework for climate change deal
‘It’s an economic necessity’: Trudeau on framework for climate change deal

Clark is free to adopt cap-and-trade for B.C. if she really thinks it’s a less onerous way to price carbon. But she won’t because it would actually wind up costing British Columbians more than the existing carbon tax, Rivers adds.

“The reason she doesn’t is that emissions in B.C. are growing much faster than they are in the rest of Canada and if she did adopt a cap-and-trade plan in B.C., it would actually result in a higher carbon price,” he says.
“The other way to look at it is regions where emissions are growing really fast need…a stronger policy to reduce emissions than regions where emissions are not growing so fast.”

WATCH: BC Premier Christy Clark says that some late changes to the framework for climate change allowed her province to sign on to the deal.


Dave Sawyer, president of EnviroEconomics, says the carbon price in each province will be the result of policy choices made by each government. And the bottom line is that: “Ontario and Quebec have designed a system to generate more (emission) reductions at cheaper cost.”

If Clark is worried about competitiveness, he argues that B.C. already has the legislative architecture in place to shield its big industrial emitters from the full impact of the carbon tax, in effect emulating Ontario and Quebec’s cap and trade system.

THE VERDICT

Rivers says Clark’s assertion is “missing a lot of context” and ignores the fact that Ontario and Quebec “have got all these other policies in place that are costing Ontarians and Quebecers” but which won’t be reflected in the carbon price set by their cap-and-trade market.

READ MORE: National climate policy plan moving along despite concerns from provinces

On the face of it, Sawyer says, “Sure, it looks like B.C. is going to be paying let’s say one third more by 2020.” But he adds, “there are choices that the British Columbia government has made that’s going to increase the cost on their business that Ontario hasn’t made.

“So it’s not such a simple comparison.”
For these reasons, Clark’s assertion scores a rating of “some baloney.”

METHODOLOGY

The Baloney Meter is a project of The Canadian Press that examines the level of accuracy in statements made by politicians. Each claim is researched and assigned a rating based on the following scale:

[oneoff]

The baloney is deep enough that its pretty hard to tell what its made of.

Somehow its probably connected to the state of California and may well be more of a wealth/speculator/(stock) market setup than anything else. The bottom line might be that it is based on US dollars and Ontario and Quebec might get stung or who knows Quebec they might make out like bandits and Ontario arrives at the party too late; or scheme collapses or somebody changes the rules.

Can anybody explain what going on; in less words than what "cap and trade" means.

[Oliver88]

Net Result of multi-year carbon tax in BC:
Green house gases still increasing.

What was the point of their tax again?

[ajl]

BC's carbon tax was designed for and is effective at bringing in revenue from outside BC to inside BC. The most obvious example is western farmers paying BC carbon tax on shipments to port. It never had anything to do with the environment and never will but it is a highly successful tax grab outside of its borders. The Notely government and the prime minister of ottawa both need money for their friends and cronies and there are people stupid enough to go along with a carbon tax so hence there is carbon taxes.

[chuckChuck]

BC's carbon tax was designed for and is effective at bringing in revenue from outside BC to inside BC. The most obvious example is western farmers paying BC carbon tax on shipments to port. It never had anything to do with the environment and never will but it is a highly successful tax grab outside of its borders. The Notely government and the prime minister of ottawa both need money for their friends and cronies and there are people stupid enough to go along with a carbon tax so hence there is carbon taxes.

How do you know what percentage of tax will come from outside the province? I think it will be relatively small. The provinces are allowed to design what ever system works best for them. They are also allowed to keep all the revenues, and exempt some sectors, and use it however they see fit.

[Hamloc]

My understanding on the way the Quebec Ontario California cap and trade system works. Ontario can buy a claimed reduction in emissions in California, then California can claim Ontario has made a reduction and can buy the same claim. So one reduction can be claimed more than once. It would seem to me it is a mythical paper chase that won't reduce emissions but will increase every bodies costs. Absolute BS! It is fascinating to me that supposedly smart people are this stupid. I also read that when California started this they created way more carbon credits than was necessary so that they would remain artificially cheap long into the future which is why Quebec and Ontario signed on.

[furrowtickler]

Agree Hamloc. This is why the whole carbon tax scheme is a fraud. It's just a way to create wealth from the backs of hard working people. It has nothing to do with helping the environment.

[furrowtickler]

This is most likely why Brad Wall opposed the carbon tax from day one. He knows it's a pyramid scheme and Sask will always stay at the bottom of this B/S climate tax grab.

[Hamloc]

Furrow interesting article in the Western Producer about how adaptation is the best plan for climate change. One interesting point the author made is that there is less than a 20% chance of keeping the average temperature rise below 2' Celsius in his opinion. And let's be realistic if Canada didn't exist 98.6 of the C02 would be produced. But on the other hand if Canada didn't exist how much less would be sequestered? Our large land mass and low population make Canada a net sequesterer in my opinion. Something that is never brought up by our enviro zombie governments!

[blackpowder]

The emperor adores his fine new clothes and his servants all congratulate him.
People are sheep. Nothing new here. Only difference between carbon dredits and the tulip craze
is this one may have some environmental benefits through awareness.

[oneoff]

Arguing what you think is so; is futile if you can't at least back it up with facts.

What is also a part of many governments policies and plans is a comprehensive system of monitoring; instrumentation , proving (ie. checking accuracy of measuring instruments; reporting. certification, tracing and analysis cross checking.


In Sask oil industry, Directive PGG017 is a good example. Here's a snippet. Oh! And there's no grandfathering of old exemptions; which is a little advertised feature of just about every revised program or those who have't noticed. This apparently goes for carbon taxes and pulling you back to a fraction of some previous level well into the past is effectively retroactively changing rules on projects undertaken with previous agreements and understandings.

Compliance Reporting Tool for Directive PNG017 -

The ministry expects industry to make continuous progress towards being 100% compliant by April 1, 2020, and will require operators to demonstrate their progress during this period. When requested by the ministry, operators are required to provide the ministry a document that demonstrates their level of compliance. The Compliance Reporting Tool for Directive PNG017 could be one way to provide an approximate compliance percentage for Directive PNG017. Please refer to the Compliance Reporting Tool for Directive PNG017. This document can also be used by operators to track their approximate compliance percentage for Directive PNG017 throughout the four-year implementation period. If there are any suggested changes to this document, please email Directive17.econ@gov.sk.ca.