British Columbia has had a carbon tax for some, and it is so successful that BC businesses are asking for an increase.
A carbon tax may be a controversial topic in the United States, but in one Canadian province, this eight-year-old policy has been such a success that on Wednesday more than 100 businesses said they support a tax increase.
The proposed plan includes myriad recommendations, like reducing emissions in the so-called built environment, industry, and transportation sectors by 40 percent compared to 2007 levels. Yet among the 32 recommendations, raising the carbon tax could be the most salient to the public as it affects everyone. It also brings direct monetary benefits, since the carbon tax is revenue neutral — meaning every dollar generated goes back to the public through reductions in other taxes. So the extra money that British Columbians pay for gas, for instance, is offset by a tax refund elsewhere.
Although it’s received some criticism, the carbon tax has been widely deemed a success by the government, nonprofits, and academics. Studies have found that the carbon tax reduced fuel usage by at least 16 percent, and that emissions have fallen 3.5 times faster per capita than the rest of the country. The tax has also created negligible impacts on the economy. In fact, British Columbia’s economic growth rebounded at the same rate as the rest of the country following the recession.The actual impact on people will depend on how it is implemented. British Columbia has shown that there are implementations that don't have negative impacts.
And is it really true that the world's poor will be hurt by a carbon tax?
[BEIJING] Imposing a carbon tax to fight climate change will not hurt the poor in the developing countries, according to research announced this week (15 May).
The study, conducted by Arief Anshory Yusuf of Padjadjaran University in Indonesia, was presented at the 27th biannual workshop of the Economy and Environment Programme for Southeast Asia in Beijing, China.
But the new study, based on data from Indonesia, shows that in terms of energy consumption, the impact on the rural poor would be much less than that on wealthy people in cities, as the poor use comparatively little energy.
The poor could actually benefit from a carbon tax. Rising energy prices mean that small scale farmers ― who make up the majority of Indonesia's poor and use little machinery ― could compete better with large farms that rely on machinery with high energy consumptions.There is no point in debating the issue. Failing to impose a carbon tax will result in unchecked global warming which will benefit no one.