carbon tax

[blackpowder]

Please show the direct effect the carbon tax alone had on emissions.

[TASFarms]

If you have evidence and data to the contrary to back up your claim show us or shut up.

Where is the Vancouver air port in that report. I can’t find it. They state they only use domestic air travel. Yet the air port has expanded over the reports said time. That’s a very cherry picked data set. If you look through there is lots missing.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you are providing all the evidence for me. As I stated in a previous thread, I don't take a position unless there is a cut and dried black and white, provable answer. And I don't make an accusation unless I have done my research and know that what I say has the evidence to back it up. Then I ask you for evidence to the contrary, which you never can find, so you resort to ranting about irrlevant topics, and name calling.

You really like to use spurious correlations to prove causation as it relates to CAGW, so in this case, can you show the correlation between absolute CO2 emissions beginning to drop 7 years before the CO2 tax was implemented, and then rising again soon after implementation, and after the tax rate rose. Nothing in the documentation or media hype stated that their goal was to reduce CO2 per capita, and that certainly was not the message from the UN. Then use that same logic to justify how the US reduced their CO2 emissions in absolute terms in the same period with no CO2 tax, and robust growth.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300550#! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300550#!

British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: A review of the latest “grand experiment” in environmental policy

Abstract

In 2008, British Columbia implemented the first comprehensive and substantial carbon tax in North America. By 2012, the tax had reached a level of C$30/t CO2, and it covers about three-quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions in the province. This paper reviews existing evidence on the effect of the tax on greenhouse emissions, the economy, and the distribution of income, and provides new evidence on public perceptions of the tax. Empirical and simulation models suggest that the tax has reduced emissions in the province by between 5% and 15% since being implemented. At the same time, models show that the tax has had negligible effects on the aggregate economy, despite some evidence that certain emissions-intensive sectors face challenges. Studies differ on the effects of the policy on the distribution of income, however all studies agree that the effects are relatively small in this dimension. Finally, polling data shows that the tax was initially opposed by the majority of the public, but that three years post-implementation, the public generally supported the carbon tax.

[chuckChuck]

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/true-measure-bcs-carbon-tax/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2019/true-measure-bcs-carbon-tax/

The population and economy in in BC has grown substantially since the implementation of a modest carbon tax. The reason total emissions have fallen only small amounts is the tax is relatively small. But based on GDP growth and population growth the tax has significantly slowed emmissions growth over what would have happened with out a carbon tax.

Some western premiers like to argue that the carbon tax is a job killer. In BC's case this has not been true. BC cut other taxes to make their carbon tax more revenue neutral. Which is what Preston Manning was advocating for.

"Emissions in energy used have been falling since 2007 while the GHG intensity of the economy has fallen rapidly since 2007. BC GHGs were below 2007 levels before 2016 and have since increased to 2007 levels. Annually, GHGs jump around, with annual growth negative in 4 of the last 10 years for which we have data. Still, with a growing economy and declining emissions, the historical data indicate that BC’s GHG intensity per unit of GDP, a leading indicator of decarbonization success, fell 19 percent since 2007. Different economic sectors have very different emissions intensities, and it matters where economic growth occurs. Emissions-intensive natural gas production in British Columbia grew 61 percent between 2007 and 2017 while oil production grew 39 percent. These high-emissions-intensive sectors have muted improvements in emissions intensity from other sectors in BC’s economy."

"Decomposing the underlying drivers of GHGs helps to explain BC’s overall emissions trend. In BC, these drivers have had a big effect in both increasing and reducing emissions. High economic growth compared with the rest of Canada coupled with more growth in emissions-intensive sectors like oil and natural gas meant that the carbon tax and other carbon policies had to work harder to keep down 13 megatonnes of new GHGs. Offsetting this increase was 13 megatonnes less of GHGs due to improved energy efficiency and less GHGs in energy used, with a net-effect flat total GHGs since 2007."

"The next time someone argues carbon taxes have not worked in BC, remind them BC’s economy has expanded like gangbusters since the carbon tax was implemented, and that the carbon tax has had to work hard to keep up with the GHG Joneses."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Empirical and simulation models suggest that the tax has reduced emissions in the province by between 5% and 15% since being implemented.

This is what constitutes evidence in Chucks world. The models say that emissions went down, while real world observations show that it went up, so obviously the real world observations are wrong, and the models must be right.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The reason total emissions have fallen only small amounts is the tax is relatively small.

And there is the answer to my original question, as to why farmers failed to heed the market signals of the CO2 tax, and increased their emissions. The tax was just too low. Need to add a few more zeros onto the right side of the tax rate, to make it effective. When the CO2 tax is so high that it costs more to dry grain, than what the grain is worth, only then will dumb farmers will take the hint and do the right thing for the environment.

[chuckChuck]

"High economic growth compared with the rest of Canada coupled with more growth in emissions-intensive sectors like oil and natural gas meant that the carbon tax and other carbon policies had to work harder to keep down 13 megatonnes of new GHGs. Offsetting this increase was 13 megatonnes less of GHGs due to improved energy efficiency and less GHGs in energy used, with a net-effect flat total GHGs since 2007."

If you look at the graph in the previous article "Changes in drivers of greenhouse gases in British Columbia, 2007 to 2017" you will see that growth in GDP drove emmissions higher while energy efficiency gains offset the growth because of GDP.

So its clear that the carbon tax worked. GDP grew but not total emmissions

[chuckChuck]

A lot of agriculture is exempt from carbon taxes so there are few market signals if they are exempt. There is no reason that trade sensitive sectors like agriculture can't receive rebates in a revenue neutral system.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So its clear that the carbon tax worked. GDP grew but not total emmissions

Do you even read your own post? Or links?

You just finished justifying the increase in BC's total emissions, and now you claim that total emissions ( Only one M required), did not grow???

And how is it clear that the CO2 tax worked? The USA had even larger gains in population, unprecedented exponential growth in their energy sector, and strong economic growth yet their total emissions ( not per capita, or per unit f GDP), dropped with no CO2 tax. So how is BC's failure to lower their overall emissions clear evidence that the CO2 tax worked?

[chuckChuck]

"Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 in B.C. were 64.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is a 1.2% increase in emissions since 2016 and a 0.5% decrease in emissions since 2007—the Government of British Columbia's baseline year for assessing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emission estimates reported here are from the British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory (2017) and do not include forest management offsets."

This portion of the thread is about BC and their carbon tax.

You said the carbon tax isn't working in BC. You are wrong. GDP has grown substantially and the total emissions have changed very little.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicat...emissions.html http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicat...emissions.html

"British Columbians are generating fewer greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions per person in British Columbia have declined over the past decade and stabilized in recent years. Greenhouse gas emissions per unit gross domestic product—a measure of the size of the economy—are on the decline in B.C."


Show us the evidence on the USA from an independent credible source.

[chuckChuck]

"Emissions in energy used have been falling since 2007 while the GHG intensity of the economy has fallen rapidly since 2007. BC GHGs were below 2007 levels before 2016 and have since increased to 2007 levels. Annually, GHGs jump around, with annual growth negative in 4 of the last 10 years for which we have data. Still, with a growing economy and declining emissions, the historical data indicate that BC’s GHG intensity per unit of GDP, a leading indicator of decarbonization success, fell 19 percent since 2007. Different economic sectors have very different emissions intensities, and it matters where economic growth occurs. Emissions-intensive natural gas production in British Columbia grew 61 percent between 2007 and 2017 while oil production grew 39 percent. These high-emissions-intensive sectors have muted improvements in emissions intensity from other sectors in BC’s economy."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No, this thread wasn't originally about BC's CO2 tax, it was about the failure of CO2 tax to dissuade farmers from using fossil fuels to dry their grain, you took it off on a tangent about BC.

[chuckChuck]

A5 why are you worrying about the carbon tax or greenhouse gas emissions because you don't believe in human caused climate change science anyway.

So why waste our time telling us that carbon taxes don't work. According to you there is no problem so why bother discussing any measures to reduce emissions?

[chuckChuck]

No, this thread wasn't originally about BC's CO2 tax, it was about the failure of CO2 tax to dissuade farmers from using fossil fuels to dry their grain, you took it off on a tangent about BC.

The thread title is Carbon tax