Carbon Tax Reduces CO2 Without Harming Economy

[ReeferMadness]

So says the Economist.

Crucially, the levy does not appear to have hurt families, the poor and businesses, as opponents argued it would. In fact, BC's economic performance, though hardly stellar—output per person dipped by 0.15% in the period 2008-11—was slightly less miserable than the 0.23% drop in the rest of Canada.

[Shady]

So says the Economist.

Well, it hasn't worked in Europe at all. Anyways, no thank you to a carbon tax. It's silly and unproductive.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, it hasn't worked in Europe at all. Anyways, no thank you to a carbon tax. It's silly and unproductive.

Thank you Dr. Shady for that brilliant and scholarly input. I'm sure that economists will be studying your advice for years to come.

[Shady]

Thank you Dr. Shady for that brilliant and scholarly input. I'm sure that economists will be studying your advice for years to come.

They don't have to study my advice, they just need to look at Europe.

http://science.time.com/2013/04/17/if-carbon-markets-cant-work-in-europe-can-they-work-anywhere/

[ReeferMadness]

They don't have to study my advice, they just need to look at Europe.

http://science.time.com/2013/04/17/if-carbon-markets-cant-work-in-europe-can-they-work-anywhere/

Do you actually read the links or just chuck them out there and hope someone else can explain them to you? BC uses a carbon tax and the link you provided was for cap and trade. The author of your article said nothing bad about a carbon tax; and stops just short of actually suggesting it:

That might leave the door open for other policies, including a straight carbon tax, more support for renewables or increases R&D funding for carbon-free power. We could use all three, but carbon markets may be finished. If carbon trading can’t make it in Europe, it can’t make it anywhere.

[margrace]

Well sounds like a good torry, the weather isn't changing its always been like this we just didn't hear about the storms OR AT LEAST THATS WHAT ONE OF MY conservative friends claims

[segnosaur]

Carbon Tax reduces CO2 without harming Economy

Crucially, the levy does not appear to have hurt families, the poor and businesses, as opponents argued it would. In fact, BC's economic performance, though hardly stellar—output per person dipped by 0.15% in the period 2008-11—was slightly less miserable than the 0.23% drop in the rest of Canada.

There are a couple of things that should be noted:

- I would be hesitant in basing anything on a single observation (i.e. how BC is doing). After all, the economy (as well as energy consumption) is quite complex and depends on a wide range of variables. Remember, Ontario's manufacturing sector was particularly hard hit by the recent downturn; this might have served to drag the Canadian average down. BC's economy is less dependent on manufacturing, so it might not have been as hard hit

- The article pointed out that while they did bring in a carbon tax, they also reduced other taxes.

I myself am not opposed to the concept carbon tax. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense. However, in order for it to work, it has to have a few features:

- Be revenue neutral, with corresponding reductions in income, sales or corporate taxes. Otherwise, its just a tax increase (which of course is not good for the economy). One of the problems is I don't really trust any party not to use a carbon tax as a way to institute a tax grab

- Avoid such loopholes as 'carbon credits/carbon trading'

- Recognize the fungible nature of energy sources and certain resources

Back in 2008 the Liberals brought out their 'green shift' environmental platform. Even though I think a carbon tax might be beneficial, the Liberal's plan sucked in its implementation.

[Bob Macadoo]

Doesn't the success or failure of the tax completely rely on whether they actually need it or not? Regions such as BC or Quebec can incorporate a carbon tax easily and claim quick success however jurisdictions such as Alberta or Kentucky would be a disaster.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Bob Macadoo

[ReeferMadness]

Doesn't the success or failure of the tax completely rely on whether they actually need it or not. Regions such as BC or Quebec can incorporate a carbon tax easily and claim quick success however jurisdictions such as Alberta or Kentucky would be a disaster.

Certainly, carbon taxes (or any other form of carbon pricing or regulation) is going to disproportionately affect energy producing regions. That's unavoidable. However, that's only because wildly excessive and irresponsible use of fossil fuels in the first place has artificially boosted these economies.

[ReeferMadness]

There are a couple of things that should be noted:

- I would be hesitant in basing anything on a single observation (i.e. how BC is doing). After all, the economy (as well as energy consumption) is quite complex and depends on a wide range of variables. Remember, Ontario's manufacturing sector was particularly hard hit by the recent downturn; this might have served to drag the Canadian average down. BC's economy is less dependent on manufacturing, so it might not have been as hard hit

- The article pointed out that while they did bring in a carbon tax, they also reduced other taxes.

I myself am not opposed to the concept carbon tax. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense. However, in order for it to work, it has to have a few features:

- Be revenue neutral, with corresponding reductions in income, sales or corporate taxes. Otherwise, its just a tax increase (which of course is not good for the economy). One of the problems is I don't really trust any party not to use a carbon tax as a way to institute a tax grab

- Avoid such loopholes as 'carbon credits/carbon trading'

- Recognize the fungible nature of energy sources and certain resources

Back in 2008 the Liberals brought out their 'green shift' environmental platform. Even though I think a carbon tax might be beneficial, the Liberal's plan sucked in its implementation.

I suppose you'll just have to agree to disagree with the economists who studied the tax.

We'll never know if the Liberals "green shift" would have sucked or not because it will never be implemented. Personally, I thought Stephane Dion is much too honest and has too much integrity to be a political leader. Unlike people who get elected, he was honest about what he wanted to do. For that he got pulverized.

[Bob Macadoo]

Certainly, carbon taxes (or any other form of carbon pricing or regulation) is going to disproportionately affect energy producing regions. That's unavoidable. However, that's only because wildly excessive and irresponsible use of fossil fuels in the first place has artificially boosted these economies.

Then is it not disingenuous to claim victory by citing BC, need to get a carbon hog on board otherwise the jury's still out. Its just an economic hypothesis rather than a theory.

[jbg]

Doesn't the success or failure of the tax completely rely on whether they actually need it or not? Regions such as BC or Quebec can incorporate a carbon tax easily and claim quick success however jurisdictions such as Alberta or Kentucky would be a disaster.

Why Kentucky in particular?

[jbg]

Certainly, carbon taxes (or any other form of carbon pricing or regulation) is going to disproportionately affect energy producing regions. That's unavoidable. However, that's only because wildly excessive and irresponsible use of fossil fuels in the first place has artificially boosted these economies.

Do you drive?

[GostHacked]

Thank you Dr. Shady for that brilliant and scholarly input. I'm sure that economists will be studying your advice for years to come.

Why would we be looking for advice from economists with regard to climate change?

[jbg]

Why would we be looking for advice from economists with regard to climate change?

To balance costs of taking action on a phantom problem with the benefits inherent in creating a solution in search of a problem.

[GostHacked]

To balance costs of taking action on a phantom problem with the benefits inherent in creating a solution in search of a problem.

If there is a real problem with climate change, we'd see more immediate and tangible actions. But since a price is associated with it in many cases, it's treated as an economic problem and not an environmental one. Wrong mind set if one really wants to save the environment.

[jbg]

If there is a real problem with climate change, we'd see more immediate and tangible actions. But since a price is associated with it in many cases, it's treated as an economic problem and not an environmental one. Wrong mind set if one really wants to save the environment.

There are far more certain and pressing environmental problems to solve, that involve dumping real toxins into the air. CO² is not a poison; it is a possible contributor to AGW, if indeed that problem exists. I am much more concerned about sulfur and other known poison emissions.

[GostHacked]

There are far more certain and pressing environmental problems to solve, that involve dumping real toxins into the air. CO² is not a poison; it is a possible contributor to AGW, if indeed that problem exists. I am much more concerned about sulfur and other known poison emissions.

I sure wish you had piped up in those other threads...could have used some support this when telling Waldo. I agree about polution being the big problem.

Recent reports showing a nice garbage patch in the Great Lakes, and to think it was only in the Pacific ocean. Wildlife is EATING the plastics and dying because of it.

The enviroment is absolutley polluted from the air, sea and land. I believe we have already passed the tipping point and the environment cannot handle the amount of pollution we dole out.

Cars, ships, planes, trains ect ect all burn fuels creating toxic emissions.

Industry pollutes and when accidents happen, environmental costs are very high.

The Gulf Coast in the south USA is still in trouble years after Deepwater Horizion.

The Pacific ocean and Japan have been continually radiated by Fukushima since 3 core meltdowns happened right after the quakce/tsunami. We have radioactive depleted uranium being littered all over battlefields .. don't have to tell anyone what the concerns are there.

Trucks crashing into rivers spilling toxic fuel killing fish.

Navy operations in the oceans using frequencies that are causing marine life to act out of their norm, beaching themselves, dying in mass numbers, unable to navigate or communicate properly.

Everything we use and buy comes in plastic and much of it does not get recycled. Cities getting bigger, more polution happening, and less and less place to put the garbage we create.

Not to mention the mining industry and pollution that comes with it. I've seen that first hand, grew up in a mining town.

.......

[ReeferMadness]

Why Kentucky in particular?

I suspect it's coal mining.

[ReeferMadness]

Do you drive?

As little as I can manage. It wouldn't bother me if gas prices doubled. Or tripled.

Edited August 9, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

If there is a real problem with climate change, we'd see more immediate and tangible actions. But since a price is associated with it in many cases, it's treated as an economic problem and not an environmental one. Wrong mind set if one really wants to save the environment.

I don't agree. Most environmental organizations don't agree.

But you're welcome to your opinion.

[ReeferMadness]

There are far more certain and pressing environmental problems to solve, that involve dumping real toxins into the air. CO² is not a poison; it is a possible contributor to AGW, if indeed that problem exists. I am much more concerned about sulfur and other known poison emissions.

Why not reduce all of them? In a lot of cases, the same activities that create sulfur and other emissions also create CO².

Fossil fuels have been too cheap for too long and it is resulted in ridiculous, unsustainable lifestyles.

Edited August 9, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[jbg]

Why not reduce all of them? In a lot of cases, the same activities that create sulfur and other emissions also create CO².

Fossil fuels have been too cheap for too long and it is resulted in ridiculous, unsustainable lifestyles.

Do you really want to shut down the modern economy? Or only in the West, letting India and China have us for lunch?

[GostHacked]

Do you really want to shut down the modern economy? Or only in the West, letting India and China have us for lunch?

The economy wont mean crap if we do not have an enviroment to live in.

[Bryan]

The economy wont mean crap if we do not have an enviroment to live in.

Good thing we have much stricter environmental regulations now than we ever did before.