The gathering storm over B.C.'s first-in-North-America carbon tax has dominated the first week of this election, which saw Premier Gordon Campbell stumping for votes in the oil patch while NDP leader Carole James pumped hands outside a gas station in Burnaby.
Almost as interesting is how this only-in-B.C. battle played far beyond our provincial borders.
The New York Times' Green Inc. blog marveled at the debate:
While British Columbia has a provincial Green Party, the larger, left-of-center New Democratic Party is also closely associated with environmental issues. By contrast the British Columbia Liberal Party, a center-right group which is independent of the federal party of the same name, is generally viewed as a friend of business interests.
When the Liberals began a provincial election on Tuesday, however, those roles were reversed. Three major environmental groups attacked the New Democratic Party for its plan to eliminate carbon taxes introduced by the Liberals last year.
The National Post attacked the NDP:
British Columbia’s perennially bizarre political culture proved true to form this week, as several high-profile environmental groups rallied around Gordon Campbell’s right-Liberal government and pledged to work against Carole James’s NDP opposition.
The 'Post's Editorial Board called the NDP "insincere and cynical," and warned:
As bizarre as B.C.’s political circus has become, there is a larger lesson here for Canada’s mainstream left, which remains torn between its populist and elitist camps. While a specious environmental policy based on sticking it to the oil companies may play well on talk radio or in push polls, left-wing opinion-makes such as David Suzuki know better. And as this week’s goings on attest, they aren’t willing to keep their mouths shut just for old-time’s sake.
In the run-up to the May 12 B.C. election, many pundits have been speculating as to whether Mr. Campbell could win a third term for his Liberals. His odds have always been strong. But with the left running against itself, we don’t see how he can lose.
A Toronto Star editorial also argued for the tax:
The NDP is talking up the alternative of a "cap-and-trade" regime for carbon-based energy, but that would have a similar impact on prices while being much less transparent than a tax. A carbon tax is also more even-handed, as everyone would pay it, not just major emitters of greenhouse gases. And it is easier to implement.
That's why many American commentators, ranging from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to right-wing economist Arthur Laffer, are calling for a carbon tax as an alternative to cap-and-trade. "Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing – a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?" asked Friedman in his column last weekend.
Among the most thorough analysis came from Alan Durning of the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, which asked: Will BC Elections Turn on Carbon Tax Shift?
If the New Democrats want to contest Gordon Campbell's climate-change policy credentials, they have plenty of legitimate arguments at their disposal: the Liberals' support for expanding the oil and gas industry, for twinning the Port Mann Bridge, and for the highway-expanding megaproject Gateway. Instead, they have systematically misrepresented the facts, doing a disservice to the province's voters, not to mention the global quest for systemic solutions to the climate crisis.
Researcher Alan Durning called B.C.'s carbon tax "the single most progressive and environmentally responsible climate policy in the province--and one of the best in the world." His essay systematically refutes each of the NDP's leading assertions: that the tax is unfair, doesn't work, and lets big polluters off the hook.
"I hope this argument won't work," Durning writes. "The NDP... is playing fast and loose with the facts."
David Beers edits The Tyee.
First, the National Post
First, the National Post comes out against the NDP on whatever position. That is not news. It's predictable. It is also predictable that a bunch of environmental organization in the US, where gas is quite a bit cheaper, think that accepting a tax when it is imperfect and exempts key polluters is better than no tax at all. Of course they don't want taxes at source. Their price of our oil might go up. So since when is it important what somebody who does not have to pay the tax think?
Secondly, David Suzuki is no "left-wing opinion-maker" and never has been.
Third Durning thinks NDP can focus on Campbell's inconsistency in building infrastructure for the automobile instead of the other half of his smoke and mirrors the carbon tax. If all the money from the carbon tax when to support anything but car traffic it might make some sense. If there were alternatives to carbon taxed heating fuels and hydro (all carbon taxed) there might be some sense to this. There is no alternative.
Fourth, who trust Campbell? This is the guy who said he would not sell BC Rail, would not renege on collective agreements and would be (Wally) open and honest. He is to be trusted to save our environment by having his hand in our wallets every time we drive, heat the house and start the barbie? This is blatant opportunistic Campbell politics and all these right wing media clowns are on side. That's a surprise?
I would say to any U.S agency researcher, "Clean up your own house first".
This is dizzying
A cap and trade system would allow for all kinds of shenanigans and a carbon tax is much easier to get rid of when everybody realizes what a scam the CO2 hypothesis of Global Warming/Climate change is. The NDP stance is therefore knee-jerk and superficial at best.
It also lines up with the US Democratic Party position. AGW/CC is a very "Left" scam. Maurice Strong and Al Gore in business again carbon trading.
Generation Investment, Chicago Climate Exchange and the Montreal Climate exchange all put in place with Goldman Sachs in the background waiting like vultures.
The give-away of our rivers is not being addressed by the NDP in any meaningful way.
Remembering how the NDP took the advice of a Washington,DC PR agency that "the Canadian People are not interested in trade matters" during the Free Trade Election of 1988, I view how the party is mismanaged with a very jaundiced eye.
I have the distinct feeling that the tax vs. C&T is being used to divert our attention from a potentially more disastrous initiative by the Liberals, especially since the issue is being given continental attention. Just the fact that T.Friedman recognizes our existance is enough for some people to give great emphasis to this one thing to he neglect of others.
Don't forget the rivers.
EI used to balance fed budget
The Carbon tax issue reminds me of when the federal governmnet took employment insurances funds and used them to balance/shore up government finances; wil those dollars ever be used for E.I again?
If it was a 'real' carbon tax designed to reduce green house gas emissions it would fund commuter rail, L.R.T.; pedicab; electric street cars; buses; rural transit service; clean transporation research; and so on.
Instead it is revenue neutral?
So all of the above are extra expenses which we have no appetite to fund?
I prefer cap and trade because I should be able to go into business selling my bicycling carbon credits to David effen Suzuki and Ms. Berman for his/her carbon emitting/burning air travel!
Mopled rivers?
Do you mean the rivers Gordon Campbell is selling us down?
Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax
The piece by Mark Durning of Sightline relies almost exslusively on inputs from Prof Mark Jaccard of SFU and his associate Nic Rivers. Fair enough, but these people have made it clear in op-ed pieces many times that they intensely dislike Carol James and are not prepared to engage in a respectful debate. Instead, they call her and Jack Layton dishonest for not seeing it their way.
This was all played out to some effect in last fall's federal election, as a means of promoting Dion's Green Shift and halting any growth in Layton's support. It worked to a degree. However, given that Michael Ignatieff has ditched the Green Shift, this provincial election is probably the last full roll-out for the Liberal carbon tax meme.
Week one
Well, it has been quite a week for Carole and the team.
First, they introduced their platform the Thursday before Good Friday, assuring that it would get practically zero media attention. Incredibly amateurish.
Now they have picked a fight with the environmentalists, a group that had a major role in getting them elected in 1991 and 1996. These people are well mobilized and discounting them is a major political blunder.
The Liberals have yet to make a major faux pas.
Liberals 2, NDP zero.
As posted at NYT responding to Ian Austin G&M Article (pt1)
From Aldyen Donnelly - of GEMco in Vancouver:
First, Dr. Jaccsard is not an IPCC author. BC’s Dr. Andrew Weaver is our Nobel Prize winner.
Second, the statement that “the carbon tax now covers 76 percent of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions while the New Democrats’ plan would lower that to 32 percent” is misleading. It is true that BC’s carbon tax covers about 76% of the province’s GHGs. But a significant portion of the carbon taxes paid by BC’s oil and gas producers and processors is deemed an “allowable expense” under BC royalty rules. The allowable expense portion of the carbon taxes paid by the fossil fuel producers is 100% offset by the reduction in their royalties due. After accounting for the royalty offsets, BC’s carbon tax covers substantially less than 76% of the province’s GHGs.
Third, the suggestion that the NDP’s cap and trade proposal will cover only 32% of the provincial GHG inventory is fiction. The NDP platform atually commits the party to: “develop a continental ‘cap and trade’ plan to reduce overall emissions, such as the plan proposed by U.S. President Obama and supported by leading climate change experts”. One has to assume that BC’s NDP proposes to produce a plan that is nothing like President Obama’s proposal–or Senator Lieberman’s or Representative Waxman’s–for it to cover only 32% of BC’s GHG emissions. There is no factual basis for making such a claim.
As posted at NYT responding to Ian Austin G&M Article (pt2)
Fourth, the critics of the NDP’s proposal, including Dr. Jaccard, have elected to ignore the BC government’s own carbon fuel consumption and tax revenue projections for the first 3 years the tax is in effect. You can find this data in Table A10 of the Budget 2008 Fiscal Plan, at:http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/bfp/default.html#61.
BC’s first CO2 tax came into full effect in July 2008. It is scheduled to increase each July from now on. In Table A10, developed pre-global recession, the BC government reveals its assessment that BC consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel will grow at a rate of 2% per year, compounding annually, over the first 3 years the carbon tax is in place. To put this in context, the annual average rate of increase in consumption of those two fuels from 2000 through 2008 was 0.4%. The budget also forecasts annual increases in the consumption of CO2-taxed natural gas over the first 3 years of the carbon tax, after five years of year-over-year absolute decreases in demand. The revenue forecast for the provincially-owned power utility, divided by the power price assumptions disclosed in Table A10, suggests the government forecasts unprecedented increases in CO2-taxed electricity consumption. The revenue and car registration forecasts for BC’s provincially-owned single auto insurance provider suggest unprecedented increases in per capita car registrations over the first 3 years of the CO2 tax.
So, rightly or wrongly, the BC government clearly believes that there will be no reduction in demand for carbon-based fuels or GHGs as a result of the new carbon tax, at least for the forseeable future.
As posted at NYT responding to Ian Austin G&M Article (pt3)
Finally, the media report that Dr. Jaccard “says the idea that the NDP will meet the province’s tough emissions targets through personal accountability measures (see changing the type of light bulb you use) by the public, and an as yet-to-be conceived cap- and-trade system is heresy.” and he believes “that the NDP policy is wrongheaded and dangerous ” is more than curious.
In December 2008 Dr Jaccard completed a report for the the Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute in which he analyzed the relative cost effectiveness of a number of CO2 management measures. The Report is titled “Deep Reductions, Strong Growth” and can be downloaded from: http://climate.pembina.org/pub/1740.
Ironically, throughout the December 2008 report Dr. Jaccard equates carbon taxes to cap and trade, suggesting they are interchangeable policies. For example, Dr. Jaccard says: “There is a strong consensus among experts that an effective and economically efficient national plan to achieve substantial GHG reductions must combine: • a policy that puts a significant price on GHG emissions broadly across the economy —this can be a cap-and-trade system or an emissions tax…” with, in fact, a bunch of additional regulations that I, for one, would classify as “personal accountability measures”. In the section of the report where Dr. Jaccard lists the measures he analyzed, he describes the “Carbon Pricing” option he analyzed as “Emissions pricing policy (cap-and-trade system or emissions tax) covering 80% of national emissions.” Also: “This analysis… found the [25% below 1990 levels by 2020] target [which target is more aggressive than the BC target for 2020] is achievable, but only with a policy package of a stringency higher than that commonly discussed to date in Canada. Specifically, it
includes: • A carbon dioxide or equivalent (CO2e) emissions charge, implemented as a full auction cap and trade or carbon tax on all combustion and almost all fixed process emissions…If needed, non-fossil fuel sectors are refunded a sufficient amount of the carbon charge to maintain output at their 2008 level.”
It is very curious that Dr. Jaccard could imagine how a cap and trade programme could be comparable/as effective as a carbon tax when drafting his report in December 2008, but could not so imagine when he decided to step up and criticize BC’s NDP party on April 11, 2009. It is even more curious that the media would directly quote Dr. Jaccard contradicting his own findings, without picking up on that fact.
By the way, I have no intention of voting for the NDP in the next BC election. But the Globe and Mail article reported in the NYT blog is one bad piece of reporting, below the NYT standard.
Aldyen Donnelly
BC Carbon tax
In Richmond last month David Suzuki suggested the environmental movement was losing because it was not connected with social justice issues. I think that wealthy privileged leaders in the green movement, like him, are indeed, out of touch with median income people and just don't see the unfairness of Campbell’s Gas Tax. A $30 a ton gas tax will cost us each, on average, $300 per year; but Campbell’s plan gives back many of us only $105 per year so that others, in high tax brackets, can get back hundreds or even thousands (if they are incorporated).
Replacing the progressively collected income tax with a relatively flat carbon tax is impossible. The top 10% have almost all the wealth in the province and pay most of the tax. About half the population pays almost no tax at all, they simply can't afford to. This Green plan doesn't take that into account.
An environmentalist I can support, James E. Hansen, urges Obama to adopt a fair gas tax which returns 100% as an equal dividend to everyone. I wish David Suzuki would endorse this winnable plan and not Campbell’s thinly veiled tax cut for the wealthy.
Aldyen Donnelly: Great Posts
I too have been curious how Jaccard can at one point say the cap and trade and carbon tax are essentially equivalent, and then, just a few days later, denounce as "dishonest" anyone who prefers a cap and trade approach.
Alan Durning
A researcher in what, exactly? Well, he has a bachelor's degree, but it's in music. Oh, and a "a certificate in nonprofit leadership", whatever that means.
http://www.sightline.org/about/staff/alanbio
That's maybe stretching the "researcher" label a bit thin.
GHG emissions, here we come!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/story/2009/04/17/bc-part-mann-bridge-opening.html
Scrapit probably will do more
for the environment than the silly carbon tax.
http://scrapit.ca/
National Post
That the National Post, of all papers, should write this... I'm speechless. Consider:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/20/national-post-editorial-board-green-shift-gets-a-well-deserved-burial.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=901882
As for global warming...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/10/peter-foster-the-crumbling-case-for-global-warming.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/09/lorne-gunter-the-real-deniers.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/02/lorne-gunter-climate-change-double-think.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1083d149-cd70-41be-b8a1-a3f13fd759ec
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/06/lorne-gunter-there-are-two-sides-to-the-climate-story-you-re-getting-one.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=bee2f7de-cb35-4f3d-9652-48c97f8ae623
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=364265
jimmy laroux
The National Post? Puleeeze!
Is Carole James smart? if
Is Carole James smart? if so, she'll stop criticising the carbon tax NOW -- and start hitting all the other environmental sins (present and prospective) in Liberal policies (off shore drilling,tankers, northern pipeline, subsidies to exploration, gateway, gateway, gateway, no cost-efficient transit policy, incentives for green power conferred only on corporations, not the public provider, etc. etc. etc. etc.)
Playing loose with the facts, all right!
Campbell & Co. are doing a good job of that, with their so-called "carbon tax". While I can agree that the carbon tax does indeed tax carbon fuels, the purported intent of the tax is to reduce carbon emissions. The stats prove that it hasn't done that. Ergo, Campbell & Co. have LIED -- and Carole James is correct in calling it a "gas tax".
NDP
Here's the national NDP, today:
"
NDP Platform
Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:
Implement Jack Layton's legislation to achieve deep, science-based reductions of climate pollution in the post 2012 period. The Climate Change Accountability Act, proposed by the New Democrats and adopted by Parliament on June 4, 2008, is based on the Case for Deep Reductions report by the Pembina Institute, the David Suzuki Foundation, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. "
Will Carole James ask Jack to change this now we see the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation up front?
Realisticman
Did no one tell you this is a PROVINCIAL election...and, did you not read the report of the Round Table - you know the one that's referred to in this Canadian Press story:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090416/national/greenhouse_gases
Man oh man
I gotta say, this is a FUN election so far!
And Skywalker? This quote of yours is excellent!
"Of course they don't want taxes at source. Their price of our oil might go up. So since when is it important what somebody who does not have to pay the tax think?"
What the Hell's wrong with a music degree?
jimmy_laroux
A researcher in what, exactly? Well, he has a bachelor's degree, but it's in music.
Jeesus, jimmy, take it easy. You know what happened to Harper when he dissed the arts, don't you?