BC Implements Carbon Tax
The (right-of-centre) government of the Canadian province of British Columbia broke ground Tuesday, becoming the second Canadian jurisdiction to implement a carbon tax to address climate change.
The tax, which will eventually apply to all fossil fuels, starts small - amounting to 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline (around 0.6 cents per US gallon) in its first year - but triple in four years and will bring in a total of $1.8 billion Canadian over that time, according to Finance Minister Carole Taylor. It is also designed to be revenue neutral, and the government has promised to account for the offset so people will be able to see where exactly the increased revenue is being returned to taxpayers.
Remarkably, the left-leaning New Democratic Party Opposition (NDP), once closely tied to the environmental movement across Canada, found a way to attack this, probably the most decisive climate change policy initiative yet introduced in North America.
So, despite the hysterical lefty bashing by self-interested think tanks, and despite the self-righteous rhetoric of centre-left politicians and supporters: in Canada, as in the United States, a left coast right-winger is leading the way - making the kind of foundational policy shift that could finally begin to turn the fossil fuel supertanker around. BC Premier Gordon Campbell is also following in the footsteps of Quebec Premier (and former federal Conservative) Jean Charest, whose government introduced a smaller carbon tax last summer.
Let's hope this sanity is contagious.
Some companies in the
Some companies in the Netherlands or Norway have been getting around paying taxes from carbon produced on offshore oil rigs by cleaning and scrubbing anything they produce it's a good way to get companies to go green by taxing companies who produce carbon. I'll probably efile my taxes this year since i got my w2 just last month.
Not enough.
I think myself and others believe this measure is not enough. My friend "Zim" sent me an excellent rant on the topic this morning. You can check it out here if you want:
http://friuch.com/wordpress/?p=53
Also, Mark Jaccard, a big proponent of a carbon tax in BC over the past two decades received an Outstanding Alumni Award for Academic Excellence from SFU at the same time this carbon tax was announced. Quite a night for Mark!
I guess from Saltspring Island everything looks right of centre
"The (right-of-centre) government of the Canadian province of British Columbia ..."
LOL!
Um, but the NDP still has a point
"Remarkably, the left-leaning New Democratic Party Opposition (NDP), once closely tied to the environmental movement across Canada, found a way to attack this [...]"
Um, from what I understand the NDP isn't attacking the idea of having a carbon tax; it's criticizing the government for not implementing _more_ of the carbon tax:
"NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston said the budget exempts major industries from the carbon tax, at least until a carbon trading system comes into place. He also noted that the biggest business tax cut is for financial institutions. [...] NDP environment critic Shane Simpson questioned whether 2.4 cents per litre on the price of gasoline will be enough to change people's driving habits."
It's not just a question of whether to have carbon tax or no carbon tax, but also _how_ _much_ carbon tax to levy, and _who_ pays how much of it (and what the tax money is used for, but it seems this is being addressed).
Although I'm well aware that many conlibertarian types like to frame the question of taxes -- of whatever kind -- simply as "high taxes" vs. "low taxes".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://zompower.tk/
Not enough taxes?
I am happy to agree that the carbon tax could have been higher. Two and a half cents a liter is not going to rein in energy spending overnight. And there are a host of other environmentally positive gestures that the government DIDN'T make. But when you consider that business lobbyists have been lining up at this government's door for the last couple of months, snivelling about the state of the economy and pleading with Campbell, et al, to set aside their little obsession with climate change, I think it's a huge victory that they had the grit to follow through.
I also recognize the "duty" of the Official Opposition to oppose. But this is just tedious, and appears to reflect a bias within the NDP that seems more pro-labour than pro-environment.
Finally, we're not facing an imminent election. There would have been no political risk to the NDP saying, "Boy, this budget sucks. These people continue to do favours for their friends in big business and they aren't doing nearly enough on the social policy front. But, on the bright side, British Columbia is now the leading jurisdiction in North America on setting progressive climate change policy. It's good they got ONE thing right."
So the NDP is being
So the NDP is being "self-righteous" by failing to include a perfunctory thank-you in their stance on the new carbon tax.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://zompower.tk/
Poor choice of words
I think short-sighted rather than self-righteous. There is a frustrating "reality" in Canadian politics that if you are in Opposition, you must oppose. And I think that blinds parties on those perhaps rare occasions when they should say, sincerely, that the government has made a move in the right direction - a step that may be tenuous, but no less courageous.
The reaL risk for the NDP, though, is that the party continues to marginalize itself. As I said earlier, their used to be tent that included environmentalists. The Green/Brown battles between environment and labour contingents in the 1990s put a strain on that coalition and the Green Party has stepped in and carved out 10+ per cent of the NDP's historic vote. If the NDP doesn't do something to bring that vote "home," they will have removed themselves permanently as a practical alternative choice to the reigning Liberals.
Once again: short-sighted.
I am interested in knowing
I am interested in knowing if anyone has ever considered geothermal heat as a cause of melting ice sheets. This makes much more sense, to me, than a 1 degree change in the atmosphere. For instance, if the average temperature is a -20 degrees in a polar region how could ice melt so dramatically if the average temperature rises to -19 degrees?
In our northern communities (U.S.) many homes and businesses have electrical wires in the driveways and walkways that warms the ground to melt ice. Warming the ground in this manner quickly removes the ice and snow.
Geothermal activity would explain the spotty and unexplainable melting of glaciers in some regions and not others.
Science should be science and not a political football. I want the air to be clean and breathable as much as anyone. I appreciate the work that has been accomplished in the last 30 years. But I don’t appreciate that true science has been seemingly high-jacked for personal gain or to advance a particular agenda.
I truly would like to hear of research that has exhausted every possibility of geothermal activity being a source that is contributing to melting ice and changing habitats.
Sorry for doubting your sincerity
David, if I knew you were sincere in this question I would put some effort into answering your question, but I suspect that you are just another commenter trying to distract from the topic (carbon tax implemented) to repeat a tired old question for the purpose of making it seem like the science isn't solid. So here's a short and incomplete answer: if geothermal, then oceans would warm from the bottom up (they are warming top-down) and the stratosphere wouldn't be cooling (it is).
Now, how about that carbon tax! Yay! But I still plan to vote Green. I have a problem doubting sincerity (including that of AGW-deniers and politicians).
Tsk, tsk, David.
"David, if I knew you were sincere in this question I would put some effort into answering your question, but I suspect that you are ... "
David,
Don't you know Stephen Berg only doles out his rare wisdom to those he deems sincere? It takes a lot of effort for Stephen to dispense his all-encompassing knowledge to the ignoratti -- almost as much effort as he puts into composing lengthy explanations of why he won't enlighten you with his rich trove of insight. You must approach him with an attitude of correct deference, if you wish to have your conciousness raised.
By the way, Stephen, any progress in answering my question regarding your claims that Exxon recieves monsterously huge "tax breaks"? No? Still working on it?
"Now, how about that carbon tax! Yay! But I still plan to vote Green."
Not to worry Stephen. Your credentials as a jejeune clown are intact. No need to remind us.
"I have a problem doubting sincerity (including that of AGW-deniers and politicians)."
Gracious me! What ever can we do to win your trust back?
So, Rob, you're so
So, Rob, you're so ideologically blind that you can't read the name of the author of the post to which you responded. It was Steve L and not myself.
read more carefully
I know you have little more than insults to offer, but at least you could read the author to make sure they hit their intended target.
"What ever can we do to win
"What ever can we do to win your trust back?"
Don't worry, rob! Your cutting-edge denialist "science" and "logic" devoid of facts, has convinced me that you're full of sincerely sincere sincerity in your quest for objective knowledge!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk