A new study suggests that Canadians may be in support of a “carbon tax” on activities that cause climate change. The McAllister Opinion Research survey, commissioned for the Pembina Institute, revealed that Canadians would not expect such a tax to offset current taxes and would, instead, prefer that the revenue be used to improve energy efficiency and clean energy technologies.
According to a research analyst involved in the study, “The support for B.C.’s carbon tax is fairly uniform across Canada. Six out of 10 people definitely support it when you look at the numbers.”
Wow. That’s pretty overwhelming support.
But is it realistic? Perhaps. In the study, participants were advised that British Columbia had recently introduced “a carbon tax on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Nearly three-quarters of the respondents characterized that as a positive step. In some areas, such as Quebec, the numbers trended higher than 80%.
All of the major political parties in Canada, including the Conservatives, the NDP, the Liberals and the Green party suggest some kind of a cap and trade system that would allow the market to set a price on pollution. In short, greener companies would pay less – and the biggest polluters would pay more. The Liberals and the Green party have also proposed a “tax-shifting” policy that would impose a carbon tax for everyone, including consumers.
Across the board, Canadians have suggested that income tax cuts would not be a priority so long as the revenues continued to support environmental programs – a fairly bold statement in today’s economy. I feel fairly certain that those in the US would not agree to a similar plan but I could be wrong.
I’d love to hear from my Canadian readers: are you on board with the idea of this tax?
And for my US readers: would you be agreeable to a similar program in the US?
I am an energy consultant in Ontario. I am 100% totally against a carbon tax as a means of reducing GHG. What would a carbon tax accomplish that a 100% increase in the price of crude oil and related products in the last year did not accomplish?
I believe that governments relying on taxes to curb consumption are using a pretty big stick that is not necessarily effective. One only has to look at taxes on cigarettes and liquour.
The focus should be on using less energy; conserving finite resources. We should also be focusing on sustainablility; looking to renewable resources for energy such as solar water heating.
I firmly believe that the Ontario government has done a lot to move forward the reduction of emissions through Demand Side Management (DSM) and Conservation Demand Management (CDM) programs that focus on supporting reductions of energy use from natural gas and electricity processes. The goverment’s recent policy announcement to limit coal-fired electricity production starting in 2009 will begin the process of reducing the largest source of GHG in Canada (Nanticoke GS) and eventual cessation in 2014.
There will be a cost for this and it will be bourne by electricty users in the province. But we can be sure that the replacement power, a mixture of lower emission plants, will be lower in GHG emissions. Therefore the action and costs are aligned.
Raising the cost of carbon-based fuels is an indirect way of trying to reduce GHG. The Dion idea of making the tax revenue nuetral is laughable. Why bother? The costs to collect and redistribute tax dollars combined with the indirect impact the tax will have on reducing GHG makes this a loser proposal.
Governments need to make the bold policy decisions that Ontario has made, Commit to adding 6,300 MW of conservation and energy efficiency projects. Ontario has also committed to renewable power through large scale RFPs and support for small power projects <10 MW (standard offer program). I’ll pay more but I do so knowing that it results from reduced GHG.
By focusing on being energy efficient and using renewable fuels Canadian’s can become more competitive in their business enterprises and consumers will ultimately pay less dollars for energy (not more) as their demand drops.
A new tax? What, the tax burdened that takes 50% of my wages aren’t enough? The building codes wouldn’t allow me to put up a windmill or solar panels to use non-carbon forms of energy and now some knuckle heads want to tax me more? In America we had a tea party for this kind of thought and some of us are ready for another.
I was really shocked (and happy) to learn that other countries are much more environmentally astute than we are here in the good ole US. I would support that kind of program in the US. It would probably be painful but I don’t think we’re going to slow down the damage that is being done without being forced to do so with programs like the one you described.
American here: I think moving towards total carbon taxes is a great idea. For those who hate paying taxes, this makes perfect sense. Right now I have no way to avoid my income tax, but if I were carbon taxed instead, I could change my lifestyle and pay no taxes at all. This should be a win-win situation for conservatives.
I also think that economic neccessity is going to be the ONLY thing that solves humans’ utter destruction of the environment. 40 years of awareness of how terribly we live has changed nothing. People are more eco-aware but that hasn’t affected the way we live. We recycle and use slightly less resources… Only $10/gallon gas will make mankind change their ways. A carbon tax would do a lot to speed up our evolution, and encourage sustainability. Our current tax structure encourages destruction for growth.
I don’t feel super strongly on this one way or the other, but if you did this type of tax, ALL the money from it should have to be put back into alternative power, alternative power research, and anything that can help reduce GHG’s. The govt. can not look at it as another new source of revenue to just waste on prison’s and crap