OpEdNews Op Eds

Carbon Shell Game

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (3 fans)
- Advertisement -

The new BC carbon tax takes effect July 1. The Liberals and Green Party are praising it, the NDP opposes it as a tax grab. The Federal Liberals have also put forward a carbon tax scheme which they promise to implement if they form government after the next election. Both the Conservatives and the NDP oppose the Liberal plan. Unlike the BC plan which is directly targeted at the consumer and raises the cost by applying the tax at the pump, the Federal Liberals say that their tax won't raise fuel prices. Apparently they are betting on the oil companies to absorb the increased cost.

The question to be asking here is why employ a tax to solve this problem in the first place? Cutting back on carbon emissions is a necessity if we are to preserve our civilization, though some are now arguing that it is too late and the best we can do is perhaps salvage part of it. Using taxes as a tool for social engineering, such as this, is a haphazard method that can not guarantee any specific result. The outcome of a tax attack depends upon the willingness of people to pay the tax, not on any obligation to change behaviour.

We know that according to many climate scientists we have to reduce our output of carbon gas by 80-90%. The most precise way to do that is to regulate carbon gas emissions directly by setting caps on how much can be emitted. To be fair this would have to include an organized form of rationing to ensure that everyone received an equitable share of the permissible emissions, and at an affordable cost.

It may be that the word rationing throws up a red flag for some, but the fact is that no matter how we deal with the issue of reducing carbon emissions, if we actually reduce them it involves rationing. The BC Liberal tax approach and the Federal Liberal approach are forms of rationing. What they do is ration carbon to people based on their ability to pay rather than on their need. In effect rich people can waste carbon to their heart's content while average people may have to do without to the point that their ability to survive is challenged.

Another feature of the proposed taxes is so called revenue neutrality. As the tax on carbon increases, the amount of that tax is rebated, either directly or through breaks on other taxes, at least in theory. One problem with this is that if there is no increase in tax revenue how do we fund new programs to help mitigate our carbon problem and develop greener ways of doing things without cutting into other programs like education, security, and health care?

Another problem is, if we are paying a carbon tax with one hand and getting it back from somewhere else in the other hand, where is the incentive to change our carbon using habits?
- Advertisement -

Of course changing our habits is not what these taxes are about. Our habits fuel our economy, and changing them threatens a lot of vested interests, interests that have invested in the major parties that have designed these initiatives. Stephen Harper and Carole James both call these tax plans tax grabs. What they are in reality are shell games to make the public think something is being done while actually not doing much at all.

The politically unpleasant fact is that in order to offer more than mere token gestures when it comes to dealing with our declining environment there will have to be considerable economic readjustment, and any future growth will be off of the table. In fact growth must be reversed until our level of demand on the system matches its ability to meet that demand sustainably.

In a society with no or reversing growth, the public welfare will have to be maintained through a more equitable distribution of wealth. An idea that is among the hottest of political hot potatoes. I suspect that instead of seeing politicians seriously tackle this problem we will see more shell games.
- Advertisement -


Jerry West grew up on a farm in California and is currently Editor and Publisher of THE RECORD newspaper in Gold River, BC. Graduate with Honors and graduate school, UC Berkeley. Member, Phi Beta Kappa. Vietnam veteran and Former Sgt. USMC

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

There Is No Cornucopia

The New Feudalism

Environmental Sustainability - The Core Issue of Our Times

Who Put Christ In The Solstice?

Tea-baggers Are A Riot

Why The Republicans Lost


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

When it comes to increasing corporate welfare. In ... by john riggs on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:11:48 PM
Global warming is a huge scam whether it is occuri... by Mad Jayhawk on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM
Thanks, Jerry. ... by Samuel Bryan on Thursday, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:34:21 PM
Carbon tax is a consumer tax and it cannot be avoi... by Ty on Thursday, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:03:24 PM