Comments on: British Columbia Introduces Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

By: Carbon Tax Center » B.C. Carbon Tax Backlash: How Real?

Carbon Tax Center » B.C. Carbon Tax Backlash: How Real? — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:34:53 +0000

[…] months we’ve been touting the British Columbia carbon tax, and for good reason. Not only is BC’s carbon tax the highest by far in North America ($10 per […]

By: Water4Gas

Water4Gas — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:14:54 +0000

It good that Green choices will become cheaper as It is our responsibility to protect the earth. With cheaper chioces, more people can afford it.
Thank you for the great post.

By: dating

dating — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:34:43 +0000

Carbon neutral will take serveral years to occur but with sufficient planning is achievable. I agree that limitations on car use/ number is a step in the right direction.Good post, thanks.

By: John Richards

John Richards — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:28:36 +0000

A carbon tax is an obvious way to go but surely there are other things we can do - there’s plenty of green technology out there just waiting to be developed. What about this hydrogen injection system that claims to increase your car’s mpg by 50%?

By: Len Hills

Len Hills — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:56:58 +0000

OK, revenue neutral, how do I apply as a tourist for reimbursement on gasoline purchased in British Columbia.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:55:20 +0000

Hi Jurgen, Carbon taxes aren’t enough. As it is, I drive as little as possible. And although you and I may agree a bicycle is more virtuous than a hybrid, the maniac city traffic with doesn’t seem to care (Seattle isn’t NYC, but give it time …)Let’s assume that not everyone can completely give up all driving. Wouldn’t it be better if those that must drive at least do it efficiently?

By: Will Candler

Will Candler — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:11:08 +0000

#8. Nicholas said "There’s no added incentive to encourage good habits." We can do "revenue neutral" in three ways (a) compensating reductions in other taxes, (b) compensating subsidies to "encourage good habits", or (c) return revenue equally per capita (i.e. quite regardless of carbon expenditures by the recipients.) I prefer (c), see below, but if "the sense of the Meeting" is that (a) or (b) is the way to go, so be it. Lets replace a really bad idea, "a free ride for polluters" by any of these good ideas (a), (b) or (c). My reservations on tax reductions is that we all pay the carbon tax, but only tax-payers get a refund (pity the poor poor!). My reservation about "encouraging good habits" is that it involves the government in "picking winners". A subsidy to buy a hybrid, when I could use public transport? A subsidy to install a PV roof panel, when absent the subsidy it would be cheaper to buy fossil-free electricity? "Encouraging good habits" distorts; however "encouraging good habits" sure beats encouraging bad! Peace!

By: Jurgen Hissen

Jurgen Hissen — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:18:55 +0000

Nicholas:
Pressure needs to be applied to using the car less, not just to the choice of car.

The strategy only needs one side. "carrot" programs are unworkable because they invariably distort the economy. What’s more virtuous: riding your bike or buying a hybrid car? What about staying home that day? How much government money does each qualify for? And who’s going to pay the busy-body accountants that judge all the worthiness (and what’s keeping them honest? The biodiesel lobbyists?).

No more central planning, please. Carbon taxes can correct the externalities that lead to a tragedy of the commons. That’s all that’s required. They just need to be big enough.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:58:01 +0000

#5, 6, 7
I appreciate all your thoughts. #5 - I think you’re right about the tax needing to be bigger, but your strategy is still one sided. There’s no added incentive to encourage good habits. We can’t just make negative consequences, there should be positive ones too.
#6 - Sure, not driving at all will always be better than driving. But we have to be realistic too. Our society is set up where people need to drive to get around. Since we can’t get rid of driving all together (yet), let’s at least make it efficient too.
#7 - In today’s world, a 10 cents/gallon change occurs weekly anyway. Unless this tax comes with a heavy marketing campaign, I have a feeling many people won’t even notice the change.
(More of my thoughts at www.smartsense.wordpress.com)

By: Bob Arning

Bob Arning — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:25:12 +0000

#4 Nicholas “With no annual change in costs, why would anyone bother to change their habits?”

A couple of reasons,
1. Each consumer would still see higher prices at the pump and elsewhere. Even though they might be expecting to recoup the money later in the year, there is still a greater incentive to conserve now.
2. Not everyone will see zero change in costs. Heavy carbon emitters will realize they are losing money (or giving it to their greener neighbors) and will have an even larger incentive to reduce emissions.