Top five misconceptions about B.C.’s carbon tax
Here’s a list of the top 5 misconceptions about the BC carbon tax prepared last year by a consortium of environmental groups that includes the Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club of Canada, Pembina Institute,the BC Sustainable Energy Association and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee:
Myth 1: The B.C. carbon tax won’t reduce emissions.
Economic modelling conducted by M.K. Jaccard and Associates concluded that the B.C. carbon tax will reduce B.C.’s emissions by three million tonnes annually by 2020. That represents just over eight per cent of the effort required to reach B.C.’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 (about a 36-milliontonne annual reduction).
This projection actually underestimates the potential of the B.C. carbon tax because it assumes the B.C. carbon tax would not increase past its 2012 rate of $30 per tonne of carbon pollution. A carbon tax is a powerful economic tool that can reduce much more of B.C.’s harmful emissions if it continues to increase over time beyond 2012, and if it is coupled with other strong measures (for example, tough regulations for the energy efficiency of vehicles and homes, as well as a major scale-up of transit investments).
Under the existing legislation, increases in the carbon tax would be accompanied by decreases in personal and some business income taxes, as well as tax credits for low income earners.
Myth 2: Big industry is let off the hook.
Not true: B.C.’s carbon tax covers emissions from burning fossil fuels, for both business and individual consumers. Because industry and business burn more fossil fuels than thouseholds, they will pay more of the carbon tax. The carbon tax applies to about twothirds of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry.
B.C.’s carbon tax applies to 70 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. Of the remaining 30 per cent, about 14 per cent are associated with emissions produced by agriculture and decaying garbage in landfills. Another 16 per cent are associated with industrial emissions that do not come from burning fossil fuels. These include emissions released intentionally or unintentionally during the production, processing, and
transmission of fossil fuels in the oil and gas sector, such as leaks from natural-gas pipelines. Another example is the production of lime in making cement, which has carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
The B.C. government has promised to reduce emission sources not subject to the carbon tax through regulations (at municipal landfills, for example) or through a cap-and-trade system for industrial emitters. This is a legitimate and practical approach as long as these regulations come into effect by early 2009 and are well designed. An alternative approach would be to broaden the carbon tax to cover these additional sources. A delay in implementing these regulations (or in broadening the carbon tax) on the remaining industrial emissions would be unfair as B.C. households and many businesses are taking responsible action now because of the carbon tax incentive.
Myth 3: B.C.’s carbon tax is a “tax grab” or additional tax.
B.C.’s carbon tax is not an additional tax. It’s a tax shift – and it’s revenue neutral. By law, all revenue collected through the carbon tax must be returned to British Columbians through cuts to personal income taxes and some business taxes. As well as receiving these tax reductions, British Columbians can also choose to save money by making green choices that don’t expose them to the carbon tax. A higher price for higher-carbonemission choices also makes greener options more commercially viable, thereby encouraging businesses and entrepreneurs to develop innovative and affordable lowcarbon alternatives for households and businesses.
Leading economists and environmental experts agree: seeing that cost and making it real will give us incentives to change the technologies and habits that created global warming in the first place.
Myth 4: B.C.’s carbon tax will unfairly penalize consumers who are reeling from high international oil prices.
A carbon tax can help protect B.C.’s economy from high oil prices by creating an incentive to shift to greener options that diversify our energy resources and away from oil and other fossil fuels. A carbon tax provides the economic incentive for companies and households to pollute less by investing in clean technologies or by adopting greener practices. A shift by households, businesses, and industry to cleaner technologies
increases the demand for energy-efficient products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions. And although the carbon tax makes polluting activities more expensive, it makes green technologies affordable and actually helps get these greener solutions into use.
B.C.’s carbon tax will be phased in slowly, starting at a low rate and increasing gradually to give individuals and businesses time to adjust. The carbon tax is also fair to lowincome families in the two years now covered by the B.C. government’s plan because the tax relief and tax credits more than offset the carbon taxes they will have to pay. The concern that the carbon tax could grow faster than the low-income credit over time
should be addressed as the tax evolves. By law, B.C.’s finance minister must develop a three-year plan every year that clearly demonstrates how the revenue will be recycled back to all British Columbians, including low-income earners.
Looking at where those dollars flow illustrates the significant difference between rising international oil prices and increases to B.C.’s carbon tax. As international oil prices rise, British Columbians pay more for gasoline and diesel. That money leaves the local economy, generating profits for foreign oil and gas companies. But, as the B.C. carbon tax increases, the money is returned to British Columbians through lower income taxes as
well as some lower business taxes.
Note: The B.C. carbon tax coming to effect July 1st has had nothing to do with high gas
prices experienced internationally due to market forces.
Myth 5: B.C. has introduced a “gas tax”.
It’s a carbon tax. B.C.’s carbon tax applies to the burning of nearly all fossil fuels in the province, whether the greenhouse gas pollution is from industry or individual consumers.
In fact, gasoline accounts for less than a quarter of fossil-fuel emissions subject to the carbon tax. More than 75 per cent of the carbon tax revenue will come from other fossil fuels, including coal, coke, diesel, and natural gas.
You can read the entire document here in PDF: The B.C. Carbon Tax: Myths and Realities















"Economic modelling conducted
“Economic modelling conducted by M.K. Jaccard and Associates concluded that the B.C. carbon tax will reduce B.C.’s emissions by three million tonnes annually by 2020.”
Bullshit. Sweden’s $150/tonne carbon tax didn’t even achieve that fanciful result.
Link?
Would be interested in seeing some sources Robert, I have heard all sorts of things on the Swedish tax. For example, that while it is $150 per tonne they provided all sorts of offsetting taxes to appease the biggest carbon emitters. I’m genuinely interested, would ask though that you tone down the language.
Here's the info on Sweden's
Here’s the info on Sweden’s carbon tax
http://myblahg.com/?p=2504
and here’s the info on Norway’s carbon tax.
http://myblahg.com/?p=2461
Bring on failure
So, Sweden implements a carbon tax with a package of other emission reduction initiative and its national emissions are 8.7 per cent below 1990 levels. Canada, on the other hand, does bupkis and our emissions are nearly 30 per cent ABOVE 1990 levels. Now, you propose backing away from the teeny baby starter carbon tax that the Liberals implemented last year and, according to the NDP plan, waiting for Obama to pass a cap and trade.
Y’know, I kinda like Sweden’s record of failure.
Other emission reduction initiatives
I think the key here is the “package of other emission reduction initiatives”. Sweden didn’t just implement a carbon tax in isolation, which is what the Liberals seem to be trying.
The carbon tax is a great first step, but does nothing on its own. The governemnt needs to get its priorities right in other areas. Unfortuantely, for the vast majority of British Columbians driving is a necessity of life. There are no alternatives. The government needs to step up and improve public transit throughout BC so that people have choices and can avoid the carbon tax.
Agreed
I agree CV that the carbon tax is a great first step and a lot more needs to be done. It would serve James and the BC NDP very well to back off their “axe the tax” vote grabbing scheme admit the carbon tax is a great first step, commit to going even further and also commit to pushing the government to go even further. As far as transit service, it seems to me that the BC Libs have also comitted to a lot more in the way of services.
What the Swedish Government Says
..,In spring 2007 EU Heads of State and Government agreed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2020…,
..,Increase in carbon dioxide tax Forceful measures are needed to achieve the climate targets at both EU and national level. This applies not least in the transport sector, which is currently dependent on fossil fuels and accounts for about 30 per cent of national emissions. Between 1990 and 2005 emissions increased by about 10 per cent despite the fact that vehicles have become more energy efficient…,
..,An effective economic instrument Carbon dioxide tax is an effective economic instrument designed on the “polluter pays” principle. Since the introduction of the Swedish carbon dioxide tax in 1991 emissions have fallen sharply. According to an estimate by the Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis (SIKA) tax increases on fuels implemented in the period from 1990 to 2005 have reduced emissions of carbon dioxide from road traffc by 1.5 to 3.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, mainly from passenger cars.
Raising the cost of using polluting fossil fuels reduces the use of these fuels while encouraging fuel users to start using less polluting alternatives, such as biofuels…,
http://www.sweden.gov.se/download/5e9ed088.pdf?major=1&minor=88613&cn=attachmentPublDuplicator_0_attachment
What Norway's Government Says
In its white paper the Government is proposing that Norway should have the world’s most ambitious climate targets. The country is to be carbon neutral by 2050, which means that all remaining emissions will be set off against emissions in other countries. We will improve on Norway’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol by 10 per cent, and plan to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases by the equivalent of 30 per cent of our 1990 emissions by 2020. These targets will be achieved both by substantially reducing Norway’s emissions and by paying for cuts in other countries. The whole of the extra 10 per cent will be accounted for by reductions outside Norway.
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/press-centre/Press-releases/2007/new-measures-to-reach-norways-ambitious-.html?id=473402
More Myths
Myth 6: The combined policies of the B.C. Liberals will lead to reductions in emissions
The carbon tax may lead reductions in an isolated bubble like Mr. Jaccard’s model, but in reality they will be more then offset by the Liberals other disasterous poilicies: the Gateway project, offshore oil drilling, support for highway expansion projects over public transit, lack of passenger rail for the Fraser Valley, support for gas flaring, dismantling the ALR, and selling off crown forrests for new subdivisions.
I’m not sure how many times I’ve heard Liberal cabinet ministers, especially transport minister Kevin Falcon, claim that highways need to be expanded in the Lower Mainland before transit can be added. What a load of bull. It’s backwards thinking like this that make the Liberals dangerous to the environment.
And I’m only focusing on climate change related problems, as this is the focus of this blog, but there are also problems with the governments approach to our lakes and rivers, at-risk animals, and provincial parks.
ya right
As if the NDP wouldn’t build roads?