British Columbia's "world-leading" carbon tax is being reviewed because the rest of North America hasn't followed through on pledges to keep up, the province's finance minister says.
"We think now is the time to say no further increases after the scheduled increase that takes place July 1 and let's have an opportunity to have a look at the carbon tax, both the good and some of the criticism we've received," said Kevin Falcon.
He brushed aside suggestions that he was telegraphing the demise of the controversial tax by saying he "wouldn't make that leap."
"It is still, I think, an important public policy position we took."
Environmentalists said the move to review the carbon tax is a step backwards for the province.
David Suzuki Foundation spokesman Ian Bruce said the province's Liberal government is losing an opportunity to use the environment to drive economic changes and innovations.
"This is a new government and when it comes to the environment they haven't set out a direction nor have they outlayed a vision for British Columbians about the importance of environmental innovations and addressing problems like climate change," he said.
Sierra Club spokesman George Heyman said it appears the B.C. government is no longer prepared to take a long-term approach to fighting climate change.
"At a time when scientists are saying we need to take immediate measures to curtail global warming, it's disappointing to see this government pull back on its commitment on the carbon tax."
The carbon tax, implemented July 1, 2008, was a key plank in an ambitious plan unveiled by former premier Gordon Campbell to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020.
It was greeted with praise by environmentalists and outrage from people angry that it would mean a steady climb in the price of gas. But Campbell's Liberals managed to win the 2009 election with the carbon tax as a key point of discussion. The Opposition NDP opposed the tax.
Since then, everything has changed, Falcon noted.
The world economy tanked in the months after the first phase of the tax was implemented and suggestions by U.S. President Barack Obama and other provincial premiers that they would follow suit in one way or another simply didn't come to pass.
"We had always anticipated that others would follow us down that path," Falcon said.
"It didn't happen."
The last scheduled increase for the tax is to take place July 1. It will increase to $30 per tonne, amounting to 6.67 cents per litre, up from the current tax of 5.56 cents.
When the tax was introduced, the Liberals promised it would be revenue neutral, meaning the money that it generated would be returned to businesses and consumers.
Budget documents released Tuesday show the province actually gave back more of the tax than it took in. For 2011-2012, the carbon tax generated $960 million, but $1,152 million was returned in personal and business tax measures, an overpayment of $192 million.*
For the coming year, tax cuts will exceed revenue generated by the tax by $103 million.
The budget pledges to eliminate that gap by next year and going forward. The money that won't be returned will instead be plowed into other tax credit programs announced in the budget, such as a renovation grant for seniors and a credit for children's arts and sports programs.
Falcon said the review of the carbon tax will take place over the next year and will look at all aspects of it. The results of the review will be announced in the next budget.
Of particular concern, he said, is the tax's impact on the agricultural sector, including the greenhouse business.
Falcon said that industry will suffer further when the provincial sales tax replaces the Harmonized Sales Tax. The HST had allowed those businesses to get a significant rebate.
"The industry is, in many cases, export-driven," Falcon said in his budget speech. "It sells to international markets where competitors with similar or lower cost structures enjoy greater economies of scale and create downward pressures on prices.
"In that highly competitive environment, the carbon tax is a concern."
*Story updated at 11:30 a.m. on Feb 25, 2012.
12
Login or register to post comments
judycross
1 year ago
Since it is cooling, the tax no longer makes any sense
except as a cash cow.
"Despite a warm 2012 January in the U.S., overall January temperatures over the last 15 years have fallen off a cliff - falling at a minus seventeen degrees per century rate"
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/just-released-noaa-data-shows-january-temperatures-cooling-at-173fcentury-rate-us-at-41fcentury-rate.html
We now know for certain that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas necessary for plant growth that has no effect on climate.
Instead of taxing its production, we should be rewarding it.
But since the human contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 3% of the total,which itself is less than 400ppm, that doesn't make much sense either.
It would be lovely if all the Warmists would just shut up and go away. They have been shown to be dupes and fools.
"We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042±11 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11. After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11." --Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 1 February 2012
http://sc25.com/index.php?id=378&linkbox=true
Ricky
1 year ago
Ha ha ha
The Russian Academy of Science! Is that the same academy of science from a country that relies primarily on energy exports to sustain growth, and where power is held by a nexus of former totalitarian intelligence agents, energy oligarchs, and criminals? I'm sure that Russia's intellectual and scientific elites have a grand tradition of independence from the official party line!
Never mind that vast majority of Western climate scientists! In Russia, they've - ! - discovered the truth! They have, with characteristic nobility, presented it to the world, consequences be damned! Unlike in the West (and, well, every other democratic state for that matter), Russian science isn't prone to such obvious interference from wide-ranging pervasive conspiracies.
I mean, c'mon, it's Russia!
snert
1 year ago
It is possible
to be a negative "'World-leading'" entity, "'World-leading'" at stupid taxes that don't really help anything, that is.
judycross
1 year ago
Come on, it is also NASA
Prediction activity for Solar Cycle 24 seemed to have peaked in 2007. In year before, Dr David Hathaway of NASA made the first general estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Try some science, instead of copy written by public relations firms for a change
http://sc25.com/index.php?id=377
news
1 year ago
Who is paying judycross?
Clearly these are comments from a petroleum industry hack.
Ian Hanington
1 year ago
Judy Cross: Denier for hire
Ah yes, Judy Cross, the well-known denier for hire. Here's where the science really is:
No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change; 98% of climate scientists accept that the Earth's average temperatures are rising, leading to the observable effects of climate change; and direct observation is more compelling every day.
But if you want to believe that almost all the world's climate (and many other) scientists and all its credible scientific institutions and academies, as well as most of the world's governments, are involved in some kind of massive conspiracy to ... umm... get funding or impose a socialist world government or something equally ridiculous, please expect your sanity -- or at least your motives -- to be questioned.
judycross
1 year ago
You have got to be kidding!
When:
"Two weeks ago Time magazine revealed that,
between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S… [backup link here]
In other words, what Time describes as the “biggest and oldest environmental group” in America felt morally justified in taking $25 million smackaroos from a fossil fuel company so that it could campaign against other fossil fuel companies – those that sell coal. A search of the BBC and the Guardian‘s website reveals absolutely no coverage of that news story. Not one word"
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
So, I post articles about real science and you get to smear my intentions but nobody seems to notice the hypocrisy when Warmist Foundations actually do receive money from oil companies.
judycross
1 year ago
Hello...is anybody out there real or thinking?
Subarctic Seas: Latest Study Confirms Modern Temperatures Well Below Roman & Medieval Temps
Experts reconstruct sea surface temperatures off of Norway - evidence confirms this subarctic region was warmer during Roman and Medieval times
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379111002368
Just one of many papers showing it was warmer before in history, when CO2 levels were even lower.
I can't help but wonder just who IS getting paid for what they post here.
North of Hope
1 year ago
Gas Tax
The gas tax was just a tax grab, it was not an environmental plan. All the BC Liberals did was institute a tax on petrochemical energy products, but they had no plan on how to reduce the use of such fuels. They called it a Carbon Tax to dress it up, not to reduce its use. Look at their plans for highway construction and expansion to see the myth that they were interested in GHG reduction. They have no plan to implement to help GHG reduction. You can imagine Joe the Plumber saying to himself, "Gee the gas tax is causing the price of gas to be so high, I need to trade in my 4X4 pick-up and get a hybrid car." Look at the increase in highway construction in the last few years. The NDP did have a plan. They were set to implement a Cap and Trade system. They wanted to tax the petrochemicals at their source so all would be covered, including exports. And they were initiating a fund to help establish environmental sound processes to develop and use in our homes and communities. Not much in the press about that during the election campaign, but lots about attack ads. In fact so much that it became an attack on the NDP.
judycross
1 year ago
You had better pray the NDP drops Carbon Trading
"At the International Organised Fraud Symposium in Queensland this week, Australian Crime Commission executive David Lacey said crime groups, including the Italian Mafia, were already exploiting Europe’s environmental schemes – and pocketing huge tax proceeds. Terrorists and organised crime groups, including violent Mexican drug cartels, also used fraud to bankroll their activities, Dr Lacey said.
US Justice Department official Jonathan Rusch said Germany had experienced "very extensive" carbon trading fraud which echoed petrol tax rip-offs by the Russian mafia in America in the 1970s.
Griffith University professor of finance Michael Drew said organised crime groups were "deeply engaged in money laundering in the global carbon market" and that carbon tax fraud had become "one of the most profitable scams" across Europe.
"These are well-organised networks and the honeypot is big enough to do it," he said."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-schemes-a-mafia-honeypot/story-e6freuzr-1226150401409
zalm
1 year ago
snicker
All of a sudden, a five year window is enough to predict a major oppositional climate shift.
Yeah, maybe in kindergarten.
The rest of us will simply stay in the real world and discuss what to do about warming.
Later...
judycross
1 year ago
It has been 15 years since it last warmed
The real world just isn't warming,you denier you! Even if it were, that says nothing about the cause, does it?
You do understand that sunspots have been studied and recorded since the late 17th century, so a "five year window" is a grave misjudgement. I can understand how you would not have been told how important the Sunspot Cycles are in determining climate. There is just too much correlation (75%) between sunspot activity and climate/temperature and far less with CO2 to either climate or temperature, less than 25%. One would not have to be a genius to get that CO2 is not a problem.
Scientifically, it is game over, ever since Svensmark and CERN proved that cosmic rays act as nuclei for water droplets leading to clouds. More clouds...less heat!
Elementary, my dear Zalm.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
Poor Zalm! Is your dinner pail tied to AGW in some way? I ask, because your ability to ignore evidence from perfectly respectable sources is otherwise inexplicable. I have seen times when your comments make perfect sense, so you are not a dullard.