British Columbia’s Carbon Tax and its Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

The main purpose of the carbon tax is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. It would be unreasonable to ignore this environmental problem, because British Columbia is located in the region which is highly affected by the climate change impacts like flooding and wildfires. Therefore, B.C. government

Replace Cap & Trade Carbon Tax with environmentally responsible initiatives which reinvest revenue in Northern Ontario, a Carbon Tax placed on imports from excessive carbon producing countries of 10%.

In the beginning, the writers present the process of the research conducted by the MIT researchers and conclusions that showed how even a low carbon tax would be effective at lowering carbon emissions. The writers continue the article by pointing out the effects of different policies, relating to the revenue created from a carbon tax, on corporations and lower income households. Finally, the writers draw attention to the fact that this carbon tax will greatly influence the effects of global warming. This article was written for Americans and is a solution that is perfect for the political spectrum of any government institution within the United States. The article addresses ways that a carbon tax can be used to please both liberals and conservatives. Though the writers did not conduct their own research, they did cite a study conducted by university researchers and a government organization and use interviews with key researchers in the study. Though this article cites only one research study, the idea of a carbon tax is still a viable solution and it will be used in my research to show that there is a viable solution to the problem of air

Air pollution is huge globally. With the earth warming and looking at the future and all the problems were going to have if this isn't fixed soon. Most countries are trying hard while some and Canada aren't trying as hard. The reasons of air pollution are cars, factories, land filth, etc. There are about 10 million Canadians at risk from exposure to traffic pollution. You may not think that's a lot, but Canada has a population of about 35.16 million people. So there about ⅓ of at risk while the others are still exposed to traffic pollution. If eco-rights was in the charter of rights then there would be less air pollution. If they put a taxes on carbon then it's a win-win. Because then fewer people will be buying cars that take oil. They will buy more hydrogen vehicles and electric cars. Then there will be more companies that make those kinds of cars, and they will make more money because more people buying them. There will also be less oil being pumped out, which will cause less environmental issues. Over time, there will be less carbon in the air and the earth won’t be warming as fast. Also, Canadians would have the right to clean

In Dirk Meissner 's article, “B.C LNG Minister says “We 're Not Afraid” of Federal Environmental Tests” published on January 27th, 2016, the author introduced Rich Coleman, British Columbia 's minister in charge of liquefied natural gas, will be heading to Ottawa to talk about the province 's plan for a multibillion dollar LNG industry. Coleman claims he is confident that British Columbia 's current environmental regulations will meet any existing or new emission standards. But

CEBC will submit some comments and questions for RECSI. David Austin disagrees with the BC government’s assessment that electrifying the Montney would reduce carbon emissions

Carbon taxing coal-based products, in a revenue-neutral way, will help discourage overuse of fossil fuels. The United States needs to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid the costs that pollution and climate change inflict on the general economy and individuals. Carbon, unlike other commodities exchanged and consumed in the free market, bears unique costs to the general economy that its market price does not encompass. The pollution we create when we consume carbon contaminates our air, raises temperatures, and makes severe weather events more frequent. A carbon tax is an economic mechanism that forces actors in a free market to come face-to-face with the social cost of

The neo-liberal idea that oil and gas are primary sources of revenues for the country are very out dated. This is something that needs to be addressed if we want to sustain our economy and our environment. Without a stable environment, how could we possibly have a good economy, don’t they go hand in hand? Since the industrial revolution, our economy has increased significantly, however, it has a tremendous impact on our environment. Today, we can easily see the destruction of our environment take place all over the world, thus moving towards sustainable and renewable energies isn’t as far-fetched as it once was. The political ideologies of revenues through natural resource is strong, but the people are not realizing that this is not the only way to generate revenues within a province. Some provinces have said no we do not want pipelines or no we do not want fracking, but this is at a cost of getting the blame of not following the “Canadian Dream”. By that I mean, following the greedy corporate world in destroying the planet at the cost of becoming a wealthy province to satisfy the Canadian government, and be less reliant on government subsidies. Starr fails to mention the initiatives that the Nova Scotia provincial government has been leaning toward sustainable energies, such

It is recommended that Canada adopt and implement a more active fiscal policy and cut interest rates to ensure the prices of commodities remain low. Low commodity prices can potentially stimulate demand over time and boost exports, benefiting the country’s economy, including its beleaguered commodities sector. At the same time, tax incentives for business and consumers to pursue alternative energy projects could further stimulate the economy and lead to strong consumer confidence in the levels of permanent income increasing over time. Buttressing short-term efforts such as cutting interest-rates with tax incentives to promote long-term growth and a shift toward a more diverse economy could help Canada address both its short-term and longer-term economic woes. Moreover, this two-tiered approach would likely generate an increase in consumer spending as the government’s approach would promote greater confidence in a more diverse Canadian economy being able to grow over time, thus providing individuals with greater spending

Significance of economy to voters nothing unexpected, however environmental concerns are rising. The absolute most critical issue in this decision battle is the economy, with the environment coming next. Environmental change touches each part of our economy and vitality framework. Natural issues have assumed an imperative part in the current year 's government race — and Canada 's political pioneers offer distinctive methodologies and levels of aspiration while addressing them. Regardless of the clamor, the leader 's verbal confrontation upheld the thought that nature and economy are inseparably connected to each other. Presently, in the first phase I am going to examine about stages of distinctive political gatherings on environment.

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

In managing the emissions of GHGs(Green House Gases), carbon taxes will be imposed mid 2012. "Economic theory anticipates that with the increased costs of emitting GHGs, drives emitters to downsize their activities." Salem Press (2009)

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution machinery and surface temperatures have been on the rise. Some may argue that the increasing temperatures are strictly due to the rise of machinery and less strict efficiency standards. The U.S has been debating what methods are efficient for combating increasing emissions some argue that a carbon tax has many positive impacts some say if one were to be adopted they would need reforms. This paper will dive deep into the the effects of climate of change and whether or not a carbon tax can fully help to decrease these emissions.

In Australia, there is an emerging consensus that the government should take further actions to help mitigate and combat climate change. The current most accepted policy by government is the introduction of a carbon tax followed by an ETS in 2015. However we are focusing on the carbon tax in this essay and not the ETS. Here is a brief explanation of the dynamics of a carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on energy sources, which emit carbon dioxide (Co2). Therefore, carbon taxes address the problem of negative externality. Externalities are the subsequent effects when individual production or consumption of a particular good or service imposes costs or benefits on others. Therefore negative externalities are effects, which pose harm to others without their direct interaction (Basic Economics 2011). However, usual market practices and transactions do not reflect these cost and benefits in the prices involved in the transaction, or take into account in their transaction decision. Therefore this is a form of market failure. By imposing a cost on these negative externalities, the hidden cost can be addressed. Ultimately the purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and therefore reduce