The Carbon Tax Policy Of British Columbia

Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa law and economics professor and chair of the green economy think-tank Sustainable Prosperity suggests that British Columbia’s per-capita fuel usage had fallen more than 4 per cent compared with the rest of Canada and its economy (Ebner, McCarthy, 2011) Evidently it is reducing the amount of green house gasses emitted by fossil fuel use. However this is not the concern many had with the introduction of the tax, but the concerns were focused upon the externalities caused by this and the effects it would have on the economy. Three years since the carbon tax introduction and the Provincial level of GDP has remained approximately the same, (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner) With the provincial level of GDP remaining around the same, this suggests that at the very worst the carbon tax has had no negative effects to the provincial economy. Furthermore the tax also promised to remain carbon neutral and promised to cut corporate and private income tax. British Columbia has become the province with the lowest income tax regime and the lowest corporate tax regime (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner). Although the carbon tax is being praised by many, it still faces concerns as many still argue the ineffectiveness of the tax and what that means for the province.

For the last two decades, the increased use of fossil energy caused the environmental problems. The evidence of global warming, like drying rivers, extinction of species, melting of glaciers, became more often around the planet. The climate change became a threat to healthy environment and prosperity of humanity and wildlife, and the world community started searching for solution to combat climate change. In 2008 British Columbia introduced carbon tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reduce global warming. Starting from $10 per tonne of CO2, the price was increasing annually till it reached $30 per tonne in 2012. During that period British Columbia was reducing harmful emissions and improving economy comparing to the rest of Canada. However, since the price rise on carbon stopped in 2012, no improving changes in cutting emissions, economy, and overall quality of life have been noticed. In this essay I will persuade that British Columbia should continue gradually increase price on carbon tax to the level where it will significantly cut the use of dirty energy, provide enough investments into the green projects, and support low-income families.

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%.

Despite its well-known Economic Action Plan and its continued emphasis on the need for more jobs and growth, it is still quite disturbing that the Canadian government gave a cold shoulder to environmental concerns in its 2014 budget. However, what has become clear in the last few years is that Canada is not committed to fighting climate change. In truth, it is not Canada that is uncommitted to the climate change cause. It is its Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who is blocking all efforts to put Canada at the forefront of climate change efforts . And Canada should be leading climate change initiatives because it is one of the largest emitters in the world, and it is also a rich

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

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

Chapter 19th of the textbook, “Air Pollution Policy in Canada: Government Leadership or Smoke and Mirrors?” written by Owen Temby, Don Munton and Ingur Weibust, mainly focuses on dealing with trans-boundary air pollution and how it has been one of the concerning issues of Canada since 1970 because of the federal government in past few years.

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?

The year 2016 was the warmest year on average in NASA’s 136 year record. One main reason this occurred is the increase in greenhouse gases. To reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, the Canadian government has decided to implement a carbon tax as of 2018. (Canadian Press, 2017). A carbon tax is a “legal binding associated with harmful emissions charge.” (Maclean’s, 2016). Several provinces have already introduced a carbon tax, including British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. While British Columbia and Alberta have a carbon tax, Quebec uses a cap-and-trade system instead. The government believes it is important to avoid “economic damage caused by cross-country carbon price differentials.” (Maclean’s, 2016). That is why they are

Andrew Moylan, a conservative who advocates free market and limited government, has argued that carbon tax is the less complex and better guarantee solution to carbon reduction; however, the main purpose of this paper is to rebut his argument and to present why Cap-and-Trade is a better solution compare to other solution in controlling variables, ensuring social justice and last expanding global regulation on carbon dioxide. In which how cap and trade can reduce carbon emission and save the earth from climate change becomes the fundamental question. Consisting passion on the environment more than economy, I construct my point of view base on a belief that all human beings feel connected to the environment and take responsibilities in regulating themselves, thus this paper reflects a macro level perspective. My central assumptions are that first, that the government or agency have already figured out the target setting in which encourages emission reduction but stimulates technological innovation. Secondly, the trading systems between corporations are transparent and honest. Last, I am also assuming that there can only be one solution to carbon reduction. As a result of dumping unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, we have exceed planetary boundary, thus the government should immediately regulate and monitor carbon emission in order to prevent growing consequences of climate change. Through concepts such as technological hubris and Jevon’s paradox, I will

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

In February 2011, the Australian federal government declared a scheme to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1, 2012. Implementing this scheme has generated a controversial debate between Australians. The term “Carbon tax” refers to an environmental tax forcing polluters to pay per ton of carbon which they release into the atmosphere. This essay will provide the economical, social and political implication of carbon taxes, also with its introduction who will benefit and who would suffer.

In the second evening lecture, Elizabeth Beale spoke about eco-fiscal policies with a focus on carbon pricing. According to Beale, increasing carbon emissions are not only harmful to the environment but also create several negative externalities such as damaging crops and higher health costs. For this reason, carbon pricing would help to shift these costs back to those who are responsible. Beale proposes two options for carbon pricing,, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax is simpler as the government sets a price for greenhouse gas emissions. A cap-and-trade system is more complex as allowable emissions are capped, and then the government distributes emissions permits, which are tradable. Beale claimed that no one system is more superior than the other, especially as the differences between the two get blurred as more jurisdictions are adopting more blended systems. Beale concluded her lecture by looking at the current carbon pricing policies implemented throughout Canada. In British Columbia, a carbon tax of $30/tonne was implemented in 2008, which caused fuel use to drop by 16% from 2008 to 2013. In Quebec a cap-and-trade system was implemented in 2012 that covered 85% of emissions with the goal to reduce emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. However, despite the action on carbon pricing in these provinces, the Atlantic Canadian provinces have yet to implement any type of policy.

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.

Over the years, the global environmental crisis has worsened. Large scale political action is necessary in order for change to occur. Politicians and environmentalists have previously turned to solutions surrounding cap and trade or carbon tax legislation. However, with every solution, whether it be cap and trade, or carbon taxes, comes pros and cons. Those who favor cap and trade value its long term environmental promises, economic incentives (allowances and allowance auctions), and efficiency. On the other hand, those appreciate carbon taxes because of their simplicity, promising tax revenue, and market certainty. Fans of cap and trade and carbon taxes, like David Victor and Avi-Yonah & Uhlmann respectively, view their favored strategy