96 per cent of Canadian economy no less competitive under carbon pricing

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Just the jabs that cap'n and petey belong to.


96 per cent of Canadian economy no less competitive under carbon pricing

OTTAWA — Canadians may have been told that carbon pricing is a “job-killing tax on everything,” but a new study finds the impact rather underwhelming.

The latest report from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission says only four per cent of the overall Canadian economy would be exposed to competitive pressures if carbon was priced at $30 a tonne, although some specific sectors are harder hit.

“We wrote it because there’s a bunch of businesses out there saying we can’t do this: ‘It’s going to put us out of business’,” Chris Ragan, the McGill University economist who heads the independent commission, said in an interview.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is that really true? For the most part, it’s not true, and where it is an issue, we can deal with it.”

Pricing carbon is a current Canadian reality, with provinces representing almost 80 per cent of the population either already imposing some kind of carbon levy or in the process of doing so. The newly elected Liberal government of Justin Trudeau won a majority mandate last month on a platform that included working with the provinces to establish countrywide carbon pricing.

Placing a cost on carbon has long been recognized as the most market-efficient way to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are causing global warning.

But fears of putting homegrown business sectors at a competitive disadvantage by applying a carbon tax, while other countries don’t, have undermined public support for the policy idea, helped along by the previous federal Conservative government, which loudly denounced all carbon pricing as economic suicide.

The Ecofiscal Commission, a privately funded group of some of Canada’s top economists overseen by a cross-partisan board, has been a proponent of carbon pricing since it was formed last year, but now it is diving into the practical policy applications.

The 20-page report released Wednesday will be followed by a more detailed analysis next March that will look at various options governments might consider in recycling the revenues from a carbon price.

But first, who’s actually hurt by pricing carbon?

The report looks at B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia as case studies and found a common theme: “The vast majority of economic activity — including services and other manufacturing — is not exposed to significant competitiveness pressures.”

The pain isn’t felt evenly, of course. While just a small fraction of Canadian economic activity by GDP is exposed, the study found that in Alberta and Saskatchewan 18 per cent of the provincial economy is exposed, compared with two per cent in B.C., Nova Scotia and Ontario and one per cent in Quebec.

Oil and gas, bitumen upgrading, petrochemicals and fertilizer manufacture are all carbon-intensive, and in Alberta they may also be heavy users of coal-generated electricity.

Most of the economy won’t be touched, said Ragan.

That’s because like most western democracies, Canada has a huge service sector that is neither emissions-intensive nor trade exposed.

“That really helps you to deal with the chunks of the economy that are affected,” said the economist, a former senior adviser at Finance Canada and the Bank of Canada.

Ragan says competitiveness has many facets, from corporate tax rates to the quality of the labour pool, wages, housing and transportation costs.

Ontario is currently designing a cap-and-trade system and is seized with the competitiveness issue. Ontario’s Liberal government has spoken with members of the Ecofiscal commission, as has Alberta’s NDP government and B.C.’s Liberals.

The key to shielding vulnerable sectors is to get detailed information at the company level that proves exactly how they are impacted by carbon pricing, and then provide temporary relief to give the firm a limited period to find solutions.

Transparency is key, said Ragan.

“I don’t ever want Ecofiscal (the commission) to be accused of looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses and we don’t,” he said.

“We know this is an issue. But the scale of it is smaller than you would get from a lot of people’s comments.”


Report finds 96 per cent of Canadian economy no less competitive under carbon pricing | Calgary Herald
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
... Nothing other than comm sense, logic and a healthy dolop of skepticism for the eco-industry that has yet to make an accurate prediction, generate a functional model but are proven to be fraudsters and liars.

Nonsense.

It's time for a SK to slap down a 200% nuclear tax on domestic uranium use.

How many $ per jigawatt

 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Ten dollars a ton for the first year, stepping up by an additional ten dollars a ton over the span of five years. End point, 50 dollars per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.

I began with memories of your high school math teacher, the one who was never content with a correct answer but demanded to see your "work," your calculations, just how you came to that correct answer, step by step to show the logic used to arrive at the answer.

In Justin's case with this carbon tax proposal, it's even worse. He's pulled out a number but we can't tell whether it's even the correct answer much less how he reached it. It might be a political number, something pulled out of his backside for all we know.

If there's no clear and meaningful link between the carbon tax levels and emission reductions then it's purely gestural, a nice collection of political numbers with little connection to scientific purpose.

Trudeau needs to clear the air. He needs to get up to the blackboard and show us his math.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
The government has to get their revenues from somewhere. This is a rare opportunity for them to levy a totally new type of tax.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Ten dollars a ton for the first year, stepping up by an additional ten dollars a ton over the span of five years. End point, 50 dollars per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.

I began with memories of your high school math teacher, the one who was never content with a correct answer but demanded to see your "work," your calculations, just how you came to that correct answer, step by step to show the logic used to arrive at the answer.

In Justin's case with this carbon tax proposal, it's even worse. He's pulled out a number but we can't tell whether it's even the correct answer much less how he reached it. It might be a political number, something pulled out of his backside for all we know.

If there's no clear and meaningful link between the carbon tax levels and emission reductions then it's purely gestural, a nice collection of political numbers with little connection to scientific purpose.

Trudeau needs to clear the air. He needs to get up to the blackboard and show us his math.
It is a scam. There is no math, no justification, no logic. But it will grind the economy down which may be what trudOWE wants.
 

Remington1

Council Member
Jan 30, 2016
1,469
1
36
This tax might not make our businesses less competitive, but I don't believe that's the main issue for most Canadians. Appear that their concern is that this tax will certainly not be increasing the amount of food they can afford to put in their refrigerator!! I wonder about the few hundreds we fired (we replaced them by our Governments facilitation actually, new groups willing to work for much much less)! For them, they live in a Country where everything cost 1/8 of ours, so they are good. Maybe it is time our government realizes that we are no longer getting raises, cost of living adjustment are a thing of the pass. We cannot afford to live this way, debts are a way of live now, so I would suggest that they need lower prices on 'everything', not increase them. Many peoples' quality of live have already declined, and will get worst.