The Globe & Mail reports that a federal advisory panel is going to recommend implementation of carbon taxes to fight global warming.
Carbon taxes aren't a new idea but haven't been widely adopted as yet. They work by making big emitters pay for the excessive CO2 they release into the atmosphere. When it comes to big emitters there's none quite like Big Oil and the Athabasca Tar Sands.
Imagine making Big Oil (primarily American oil companies) paying big bucks for the big pollution they emit to produce ersatz petroleum (primarily for the American market). The very thought of it would leave Harper needing a change of pants.
Carbon taxes operate on the carrot and stick principle. Big, bad emiters get the stick - the taxes - while industries willing to adopt clean technologies get the carrot - financial incentives funded out of the taxes collected from the bad guys. It's neat, it's tidy and it's effective - as effective as the political side is willing to make it.
5 comments:
"It's neat, it's tidy and it's effective "
And it's also a main plank of Green Party Of Canada Enviromental policy
When it comes to big emitters there's none quite like Big Oil and the Athabasca Tar Sands.
Um, not quite. Canada's single biggest emmiter of GWG is the Nanticoke Power Generation Facility near Port Dover, Ontario. It's owned by the crown corporation OPG, which is (if memory serves me) the biggest GHG emmitting company in Canada.
But let's be straight about this. Ultimately all taxes are paid by the consumer. That doesn't mean that a carbon tax is a bad thing, but don't think the costs will only be born by big, evil corporations.
No, if corporations can invest in tech and save the costs of the tax they will. Corporations work on scale, the lower demand the lower the profits so they will work to lower costs and maintain demand by cleaning up their acts.
While they can attempt to pass on the taxes the competative edge goes to those companies that fix the emissions rather than pass the tax.
The tax also makes the wind, solar etc more competative forcing dirty industry to adapt.
I also beg to diasagree , Athabasca has passed Nanticoke in Co2 and is growing fast. Of course Alberta gov stats can't be trusted.
You may be right about Nanticoke being overtaken - my figures are from 2005. But where did you get your figures? The Environment Canada web site only gives me up to 2005. And by Athabasca, are you referring to a single facility or company, or the entire region?
In any case, hoping that the effects of a carbon tax will be entirely offset by improvements in technology is wishful thinking. Companies already have a big incentive to reduce energy use - energy costs them money. That's not precisely the same as a carbon tax, but it's close enough for us to know that there are no easy solutions. You're hoping that a carbon tax is something for nothing, and it isn't going to happen.
By the way, GHG emmissions are primary a federal, not provincial, statistic, given that by federal law all major emmittors must report their GHG emmissions to Environment Canada. See
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ghg_home_e.cfm
Athabasca, of course, refers to the regional tar sands and the various companies operating there. You refer to one plant, Nanticoke, which is really apples and oranges.
As for costs being passed along to the consumer, tar sand petroleum prices are already set at world prices even though the extraction/refining process is vastly more expensive that the sweet crude that comes out of the Middle East. Pump prices aren't going to be determined by carbon taxes on tar sands projects which means the emitters will have to eat them or clean up.
Post a Comment