Dear Editor:
It is kind of ironic that the carbon tax started on April Fool’s Day – but it may not be that funny.
There has been many references made to B.C. as a model of how revenue neutral carbon tax can be. I decided to have a look at it. Per capita carbon emissions have decreased since 2008 but the total emissions have increased. This is attributed to the increase in population from then until now.
In 2016, Canadians used more than 40 billion litres of gas and 16 billion litres of diesel fuels. The B.C. government took in $1.2 billion in carbon tax revenue during 2016. Currently the tax on gas is 8.55 cents and 10.06 cents a litre in B.C. Whatever the carbon tax is in different provinces, multiply the numbers by 40 billion and 16 billion, plus GST, and that was in 2016.
In the year 2016-17 (you can check page 68 B.C.’s budget document) their Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Plan included 17 sundry tax credits that were built into the carbon tax framework, making the tax sum balance out to zero. It appears that the carbon tax cannot stand on its own so is it really revenue neutral?
A senior government official admitted that this was always just an accounting exercise. The B.C. government no longer calls it a tax, they call it a tool. This is from a Financial Post article of April 25, 2018.
If a tax plan cannot solve the carbon emissions, what is the government going to do with the money collected? What have other countries done?
I came across interesting plans from Germany. There, appliance manufacturers were mandated that their products had to last at least 20 years or the manufacturer had to buy them back. Extreme maybe, but given time to adjust it was implemented. Next, foreign vehicles cannot be imported unless they contain only seven types of recyclable plastic. Some North American cars had 32. Why can’t we here have vehicles last at least 20 years?
Increased insulation in the building industry would result in decreased heating and cooling costs. Example: a friend of mine built a workshop of approximately 1,300 square feet and with R32 in the walls and R50 in the ceiling; his cost to heat and cool this was less than $900 for a year.
The change in lifestyle and purchasing would have to be mandated from the government as we resist change of any kind, even when it would greatly benefit us all.
The governments attitude will also have to change by the examples it sets. Two separate jet flights that could have been one (and security was not the issue) is not the kind of example I was looking for. Time for change? I think so.
Michael Thorp,
Mount Forest