"The carbon tax appears to have had an impact on greenhouse gas emissions from B.C., which according to the latest federal data were lower in 2013 than in 2005. However, the province’s emissions have inched up slowly since 2009."
Proof That a Price on Carbon Works
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
"The carbon tax appears to have had an impact on greenhouse gas emissions from B.C., which according to the latest federal data were lower in 2013 than in 2005. However, the province’s emissions have inched up slowly since 2009."
One thing that a carbon tax would alter: many cities would feel the pressure to lift restrictions on high-density developments. You can't raise the tax on carbon and then prevent high-density residential development next to the central business district. To due so would essentially force significant numbers of the population into poverty.
In short, a carbon tax in Canada can rise only gradually at no faster a rate than city infrastructure can adapt.
Canadian cities are not built for carbon efficiency,they're built for cars. And urban infrastructure does not change overnight.
In short, a carbon tax in Canada can rise only gradually at no faster a rate than city infrastructure can adapt.
Canadian cities are not built for carbon efficiency,they're built for cars. And urban infrastructure does not change overnight.
It's revenue neutral.
The income received would be offset by other tax reductions.
It's not a difficult concept.
The income received would be offset by other tax reductions.
It's not a difficult concept.
Actually, this is a big problem in the Ottawa region, including Gatineau.
On the one hand, governments want to encourage us to leave our cars at home and walk, cycle, or ride to work instead. On the other hand, they have a plethora of bylaws preventing high-density development.
How are we ever to convince people to leave their cars at home when they can't live near work and transit service is pathetic due to buses catering to such a small population scattered over Canada's geographically-largest city!
You can't have it both ways.
On the one hand, governments want to encourage us to leave our cars at home and walk, cycle, or ride to work instead. On the other hand, they have a plethora of bylaws preventing high-density development.
How are we ever to convince people to leave their cars at home when they can't live near work and transit service is pathetic due to buses catering to such a small population scattered over Canada's geographically-largest city!
You can't have it both ways.
Of course you can't have it both ways.
The whole point is to incentvize low carbon alternatives and if we don't make the effort, then you lose the reward from that incentive.
Who met what? Automakers and mandatory MPG reductions or reduction through carbon taxes?
It's revenue neutral for the government, not the individual.
If you earn a high income and live in a small high-density town surrounded by farmland, and cycle to the grocery store, you obviously stand to benefit from lower income tax and a higher carbon tax.
If you earn a low income, live on the outskirts of a geographically-large low-density city, work downtown, live far from any shop, and own a gas-guzzler, a shift from income tax to a gas tax will hurt you.
Yes it's revenue neutral for the government, but only on the sense that the lower taxes one pays will be offset by the higher taxes another pays.
That doesn't mean I oppose a carbon tax though. I still support it because it would be more user-pay. Those who'd end up paying more would deserve to pay more. Why should the rest of us subsidize them when their lifestyle should be a luxury, not a privilege?
New fuel-efficiency rules require 35.5 mpg average by 2016 - USATODAY.com
Is this why we are seeing short term emission reductions?
Is this why we are seeing short term emission reductions?
Again, when the government says revenue neutral, it means it only on a mass scale, not on an individual scale.
Plus, as people and cities adapt to the new reality, it would gradually become revenue negative as people plan to pay less.
On the plus side though, public transit would become more efficient and so depend less on subsidies and fewer highways would be needed as there would be fewer cars on the road.
So less revenue, but less expenditure too.
That means that if you introduce a carbon tax, this would pressure cities to eliminate many of their anti-high-density-development bylaws or they would soon become unaffordable and people would move out of town or insist on higher wages, pushing inflation up.
I personally think putting such pressure on such cities would be a good thing by forcing them to give their heads a shake.
It would kill NIMBYism in a heartbeat when it comes to high-density development.
Honestly, geographically large low-density cities far from farmland would suffer the most from a carbon tax, while geographically small high-density towns surrounded by farmland would likely boom in such an environment due to lower income tax and GST combined with an already carbon efficient urban infrastructure.
A city like Ottawa would likely suffer more than any other city in Canada. Then again, that might be a good thing to smarten it up a bit.
Well again... that's just not the Massachusetts model. Our welfare package is second only to Hawaii. Not working gets you a lower to middle class living here.
Transportation costs?
If we introduce let's say a 100% carbon tax, distance from food production becomes an important determine of local food costs.
It doesn't work like you think. You can't just hop in your vdub bus and drive to the country to stock up on bacon and cookies.
