The party may not yet be over, but the hosts are starting to take out some trash and open some curtains.
Here’s a short round-up of climate-related events from the last little while. There’s an emerging pattern. It’s moving almost too fast to chronicle, and there’s no doubt it involves Vancouver and BC.
Here in Soggyville, City Council has set ambitious goals and attracted world-wide attention for its climate leadership. Among other things: a Greenest City Action Plan aiming for world-leading sustainability; a Renewable City Strategy aiming to switch the city to renewable energy by 2050; and a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, since it all may not move fast enough to eliminate problems for a coastal city.
In Alberta, the NDP Provincial Gov’t has set ambitious goals and attracted world-wide attention for its new climate leadership, based on this report from its Climate Leadership Panel. Premier Notley’s announcement was a knockout: phase out coal, ramp up wind power, backed up by natural gas; tax carbon (economy-wide); reduce energy demand; cap tar sands emissions; reduce methane emissions. Industry CEO’s from Suncor, CNRL, Cenovus and Shell stood in favour, possibly hoping for a future where tar sands oil becomes more acceptable to US and other regulators, and un-strands some assets.
In Ottawa, the new Federal Gov’t has set ambitious goals and is attracting world-wide attention. Carbon pricing; banning oil tankers on BC’s north coast, which could kill the Northern Gateway pipeline; restore and broaden the environmental review process; end to fossil-fuel subsidies.
When things change, sometimes it happens fast. And even a climate pariah can pivot to a new direction.
The province has to get on board and ensure that either TransLink has the tax measures in place for revenue to expand the network (without another wasteful plebiscite or work with the feds on changing the funding 1/3 a piece funding formula in order to give us green transportation options. As well, they need to stop building oversized bridges and highways that will never meet their projections.
As an ex-pat Albertan, I can’t stress how revolutionary it was to:
1. First see the NDP elected to government, that is, a party not beholden to Big Oil.
2. To have the Alberta government introduce a comprehensive set of policies to address climate change after decades of denial, obstinacy and economic bombast.
3. To have Big Oil and the Pembina Institute on the same stage backing the government’s actions.
To many of us these steps on climate are not enough, but it is mind-blowing considering their origin in a province so deeply and foolishly dependent on fossil fuels fro practically everything.
This is a very hopeful announcement considering Alberta’s vast renewable energy potential.
“hopeful” for those unionized public sector employees that live high on the hog off the enormous tax revenues collected, paid for by everyone else, with ZERO impact on the climate. “hopeful” also for those fanatics that somehow envision a future free from oil, such as 350.org.
Assuming this carbon tax grab will be rolled out across Canada, with no offsetting income tax or GST reductions elsewhere, it will go down as one of the biggest tax hikes – based on false evidence and ideology – in Canada, and mark the start of this countries decline into European like servitude to debt, bureaucrats, big government and false promises like those espoused by Obama, EU bureaucrats, NDPers and socialists everywhere.
“renewables” will cost this country dearly. Wind and solar at triple to QUINTUPLE the energy costs of gas or coal fired power plants are the pipe dream of the green elite that can afford higher food prices, higher energy prices and Teslas, but will lead to lower living standards, higher unemployment, lower net wages and far FAR higher debt. The kids of the generation Y will say “what were these idiots thinking, saddling us with massive debt and huge energy costs”.
A dark day for Albeta – a dark day for Canada !
A dark day for those who in the dark, you mean.
Solar and wind may not be price competitive with hydro in BC (yet), but it’s getting there pretty rapidly in Alberta. The problem is mostly storage, which is being tackled hilariously quickly. Wind is already cost competitive in markets such as Texas, and has started to undercut fossil fuel powerplants. Bulk prices have been going as low as 4c/kWh.
When you consider the incidentals renewables have been competitive for a long time already. Some analysts think that the health care costs and incidentals from coal power may exceed the price of the power by a factor of 4 or 5 times. That’s mostly in the form of healthcare costs, a bill which the gov’t also foots.
You should consider the scenario that BC could easily power Alberta’s demands with pumped storage hydro when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t out in Alberta. When it is, we turn the hydroelectric turbines down or pump water back uphill with whatever excess they have to sell us. If more storage is needed, then a warehouse full of batteries may soon be a cost effective option.
I think you stick to selling condos Thom.
On the contrary, the “darkest days” for Alberta have been when it’s one horse collapses on the buggy track from low oil prices. Even Peter Lougheed warned about not diversifying the economy that way back in the 70s. The irony is that it took a bunch of social democrats to teach that simple lesson from Econ 101.
Electricity is far bigger than oil, and the majority of it is generated by hydro dams and nuclear plants.
As for all the rest of your fearful words (debt, unions, renewables …), let’s see some peer-reviewed proof for a change.
Impact by tax and spend governments: negative for everyone, except for public sector.
After fairly conservative Liberal governments under Chretien and Martin, then Harper, Canada’s debt to GDP ratio has declined to around 40%, the best in the G& world.
Going forward, with spending taps on FULL OPEN in AB, ON and now teh federal level, Canada will decline in relative terms, due to already very high income taxes, soon far FAR higher electricity prices (as we see already in ON .. soon elsewhere), eventually higher GST to pay for all this new lavish spending on the federal level, higher prices due to carbon taxes, lower Can $, thus more inflation and thus, a general lowering of living standards.
Canada is now in the top 3 most heavily taxed nations on income.
More here on this new spending binge: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/jack-m-mintz-canadas-renewed-spending-binge
Check out page 31 of the report below for a map of Canada’s wind and solar energy potential.
http://www.sustainablecanadadialogues.ca/files/PDF_DOCS/SDC_EN_30marchlr.pdf
Very encouraging—and goodness knows we need to hear more good news. I’m curious about the paragraph reading ‘Coal port expansion, Massey Tunnel replacement.’ Just a typo, or was that a placeholder for another paragraph about the good news we’re still awaiting?
Author
Correct: an editing blunder from a rookie editor. Actually a placeholder that lost its place + a version “save” blunder.
Looks like Trudeau will leave any carbon tax to the provinces. Alberta and BC have had carbon taxes for years, now Alberta has extended theirs the Feds would meet resistance if they muscled in. Ontario is promising their own too. Quebec has a carbon trading scheme also. Even the CBC is excited and happy. As Rachel Notley announced that now they must work on getting their oil to tidewater, nobody said a word. The only question is which sea.
“Alberta and BC have had carbon taxes for years.”
What Alberta carbon tax? The previous governments there have resisted a carbon tax even when some voices in the oil industry, former premier Peter Lougheed, and other folks like Preston Manning have called for the same.
He’s probably talking about the specified gas emitters regulation, which mainly just demonstrates his ignorance on the subject.
SGER is better described as a cap-and-trade system, applicable only to some emitters, in which permits are given away for free. And until the NDP increased it a few months ago it placed an average effective price on carbon of about $1 per tonne.
Ken, you also missed the announcement from Saskatchewan (home of Canada’s most conservative premier) about going for 50% renewables by 2030. Manitoba is also set to announce some new climate change policy, and Ontario has already announced their cap-and-trade policy, with details to come after Paris.
Also, in Alberta, the Wildrose’s complaint chief complaint has been that the carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. Brian Jean has said he’s happy to phase out coal and greatly increase renewables.
As a re-pat Albertan I echo MB’s emphasis on how massive a shift this has been.
Author
Thanks, Agustin. Much appreciated.
I guess Greenpeace never ran it as a headline. But, In April 2007, Alberta became the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change legislation requiring large emitters to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Two years later the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC) was created as a key part of Alberta’s Climate Change Strategy and movement toward a stronger and more diverse lower-carbon economy. – See more at: http://ccemc.ca/about/#sthash.K10oJPFR.dpuf
Sorry. Just the facts.
Even Vice.com ran it:
“Alberta already charges a levy on large scale emitters, but the new proposal would see everyone pay for carbon, meaning that the price of gas at the pump will jump as will the cost of heating a home.”
I would have thought this would have been considered regressive but, what do I know?
You seem to know only bits and pieces.
From the announcement on Sunday: “Revenue from Alberta’s new carbon price will also be invested into an adjustment fund. This fund will help individuals and families make ends meet as this new policy is implemented. This adjustment fund will also provide transition help to small business, to First Nations, and to people working in the coal industry.”
In subsequent interviews, both Minister Phillips and Premier Notley have stated that low- and middle-income households (somewhere around 60%) in Alberta will receive rebates.
I can understand that you didn’t know and thought is was $1, instead of $15. Many people only get their news from Naomi Kliein tweets. Even some ex-pat Albertans seem to be just tuned to tweets from poli-sci at SFU. Or, they selectively edit quotes to fit their narrative.
It’s human nature to shut out what we don’t want to hear. Being objective is hard work.
This ex-pat Albertan doesn’t have a Twitter account and doesn’t stop at the headlines.
While discussing the Obama decision on XL, Notley said “… it is critical for Alberta to get oil to tidewater. ”
CBC News Posted: Nov 06, 2015
No wonder everyone is happy.
Good luck with that. Perhaps her energy (pun intended) would be better devoted to diversifying the Alberta economy.
Eric: “Alberta and BC have had carbon taxes for years”
BC yes, Alberta no. Read it again. No carbon tax. Until now.
The Alberta SGER regulations are not a carbon tax, despite what you may think. They don’t tax carbon emissions. They are a set of performance regulations. You are correct about the penalty rate of $15, but that is not a tax rate.
First, the regulations only apply to large emitters. And polluters can avoid it with cap and trade.
But even the penalty itself doesn’t apply to carbon emissions. It is based on carbon intensity. Let’s say that a producer has a reduction target of 15%. They reduce their emissions per barrel of oil or other unit of production by 15%. Sounds good. At the same time they double production. So, they now produce 2 x 85%, or 170% of previous emissions. And there is no penalty, because they met the specific reduction target. A tax would apply to what they emitted, and in this case the penalty would be zero. See the difference?
MB pointed this out, and you didn’t respond. Agustin suggested that the effective rate was $1 per ton, and even that seems high to me. Overall, in 2013, $55 m in penalties were collected, while 275 megatons of CO2 were emitted. Work it out.
Your quote was “It’s human nature to shut out what we don’t want to hear”. You are proving it. All of this information is readily available.
“Alberta’s current carbon levy will rise to $20 (Canadian) per tonne for certain emitters on Jan. 1, up from $15 per tonne. Some emitters will have to pay $30 per tonne in 2017. British Columbia also taxes some carbon emissions.”
CARRIE TAIT, KELLY CRYDERMAN AND JEFF LEWIS
CALGARY and FORT SASKATCHEWAN, ALTA. — The Globe and Mail Nov. 8, 2015
Quibbling over semantics. Levy or tax. It’s all money and it’s all about carbon emissions. Yes BC, yes Alberta. If I responded to all incorrect assertions I’d be at this all day long, instead of working and paying taxes.
It is all passed on to the consumer too. In the ‘New’ Alberta case they say 60% of the population will get refunds for paying the tax. Sounds like a big bureaucracy for sloshing around lots of money.
It’s touching that you come rushing to defend MB but you are making the same mistake.
Have you never heard of Google?
Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail June 5, 2015
“Alberta has a carbon tax of $15 a tonne, but that’s nothing compared with the Norwegian tax. The Alberta tax kicks in only when emissions exceed a regulated limit. In effect, the actual cost works out to less than 20 cents a barrel. Would the Alberta oil industry accept a higher price? It appears it would. Most Canadian oil companies already use a “shadow” carbon price to write their long-term budgets, assuming a higher price is coming. The current shadow price ranges from about $30 to $40 a tonne.”
Financial Post March 19, 2015
“The centrepiece of Alberta’s climate change plan so far has been a carbon tax focused on large emitters, like oil sands and power producers. They are required to pay into a fund at a rate of $15 per tonne of carbon produced over their facility limit, or reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 12%, or purchase offsets. The policy, introduced in 2007, remains unique in North America. The tax has collected some $500 million that is available for deployment on technologies to reduce emissions.”
Eric, you didn’t read the part above about how it is calculated. If you had, you would see it isn’t a tax on carbon emissions. No matter how many times it is mistakenly referenced as a tax in the media. Don’t believe everything you read.
Look at the math. 2013 figures, links available, but you have Google. Alberta shows 267 megatons of carbon emissions, 4.25 times that of BC. They charged fines of 55 million for carbon over a certain intensity. BC applied a carbon tax and collected 1.2 billion in the same year. BC’s tax is $30 per ton. If Alberta applied the same tax (not that it is being suggested), they would have collected somewhere around $5.1 billion. But they collected $55 million. And you claim that they have a $15 per ton carbon tax. It is a ludicrous claim. Read past the headlines.
Yes, you know how to search Google. How about reviewing the math and the faulty logic of your claim?
Or, if you just want to read an article, try this one:
http://markjaccard.blogspot.ca/2013/04/albertas-non-carbon-tax-and-our.html
Didn’t the AB NDP announce $30/megaton by 2017 going to $100 by 2030 ?
At least BC lowered taxes elsewhere, whereas AB will use it as extra taxes in lieu of a (much needed) PST. If $30 a ton is equivalent to a 3% PST (according to this renowned AB based tax expert http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/jack-m-mintz-canadas-renewed-spending-binge ) then $100 must be equivalent to a 10% PST !
Of course, Ontario and Quebec will NOT follow suit here and NOT tax consumers’ fossil fuels or heating like the green Albertans will now do, and continue to import unethical oil from the Middle East AND will continue to subsidize the car and aerospace industry. Where is the aeroplane and car production or fuel consumption/carbon tax ? Don’t oil & gas companies only produce what customers demand ? Such hypocrisy !
Thomas: $30 per megaton for the SGER program by 2017 is correct, but you make the same mistake as Eric in calling it a tax. Look up how it is calculated, or read the link provided above.
On the other hand, the new Alberta carbon tax is a great step forward.
A carbon tax is not a tax ?
Your comment was in reference to a post about the Specified Gas Emission Regulation (SGER) program. You referenced 2017, the date for the SGER increase. It isn’t a tax, unless you redefine tax to mean only penalties and not production. Is a speeding ticket a tax on distance driven? If you want to call it a price on carbon intensity, then sure.
The new carbon tax is certainly a tax, and a welcome one.
Ah yes, Mark (the counterfeit Nobel Prize Winner) Jaccard. The schoolboy that held hands with his buddies and stopped a coal train for a couple of hours, a few years ago. Yet, coal production continues to increase to where last year production was over 70% higher than 1999 to 8 billion tons.
I’m sure Mark is on his bike right now en route to the east coast where he sets off to sail to Paris for the Ecopalyse Gabfest. The ducks are being force fed for the fois gras as we speak. A perfect metaphor.
Eric, I have to say I love the way you can write this in one post:
“It’s human nature to shut out what we don’t want to hear. Being objective is hard work.”
And then follow up with a fingers-in-your-ears ad hominem attack because you don’t like what you are hearing.
You are a marvelous specimen. Keep up the cognitive dissonance!
Mark Jaccard, April 2013
“Because its performance regulation is binding, Alberta’s $15 fine for non-compliant emissions appears to replicate the effect of a carbon tax. Firms facing a $15 carbon tax are motivated to reduce emissions wherever the cost of doing so is less than the cost of paying the tax. ”
Even our very own Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Faux-Laureat slips into the variable conceptual structure of the meaning of the word calling it a ‘tax’.
Call it a tariff a levy or a tithe, or, a tax. It’s all semantics. Is BC’s Medical Services Premium a tax or a premium?
Eric: “Because its performance regulation is binding, Alberta’s $15 fine for non-compliant emissions appears to replicate the effect of a carbon tax”
Props for reading the start of the article. Now read the next two paragraphs.
“And this is why some people call Alberta’s performance regulation a form of carbon pricing, even carbon taxation. Some people have even equated Alberta’s carbon price of $15 per tonne of CO2 with BC’s $30 carbon tax, and suggested that if Alberta increases its fine for excess CO2 emissions to $40, as has been discussed, its effort to reduce carbon pollution will exceed BC’s.
But this is not true.”
The article goes on to explain why.
Full link here. http://markjaccard.blogspot.ca/2013/04/albertas-non-carbon-tax-and-our.html
So when faced with an inconvenient truth, you first attack the author. Then you quote a section of his article out of context to try and make your point. At the same time, you bring up MSP premiums, a great example of a Gish Gallop.
An epic fail.
You’ve probably never heard of the Brookings Institution but 97.6% of their employees’ political donations go to Democrats. They’ve been around for 99 years.
It’s the most quoted US think tank.
March 2013
The Tax Favored By Most Economists
“Although a carbon tax would be a new policy for the federal government, it has been implemented in several other countries (though not always in the manner advocated by economists), including the Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The Canadian provinces of Alberta and Quebec adopted carbon taxes in 2007, followed by British Columbia in 2008. Meanwhile, California, the 9th largest economy in the world, has recently initiated a cap-and-trade system, which auctions carbon permits to companies.”
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
OK, Eric. I commend you for coming back with a quote from an article that doesn’t contradict your claim, and you only made one snide remark in the process.
I maintain that SGER is not a tax, but it does place a price on carbon.
Now, what was the effective price on carbon under SGER under the PC administration?
I’d also agree that SGER places a price on carbon, while not functioning as a tax.
It is like setting a speed limit, with a $15 fine for speeding, per km driven over the speed limit. You only check the large vehicles, not all of them. If a driver is caught speeding, they can claim credits for all the years they didn’t speed so as to avoid paying anything. If they drive twice as far, but don’t speed except as permitted under the cap and trade, there is no fine. Eric would seemingly claim that that speeding fine is really a tax on driving, disregarding that it is easy to drive more while paying no fine. It adds costs to driving for some who break the regulations, but it doesn’t perform like a tax because it isn’t indexed to the overall distance driven.
Whether or not it is called a tax is not as important as the claim that driving, in this example, is now taxed at $15/km for purposes of comparisons to other places that do charge a road price per km.
Look Buddy, when the Brookings Institution, The Toronto Globe and Mail, The Financial Post, Vice.com and even Wikipedia, etc.,etc., state clearly that Alberta has had a tax on carbon since 2007 it’s quite likely that they have what’s known as a Carbon Tax. As I stated up the top here. Then you guys keep pounding away at me because you just don’t want to believe it. You don’t want to accept it. It’s not the way you see it. It’s not the word you would use. I mean, how can we keep on vilifying Alberta if we accept that they led the way in taxing carbon? Now you want to discuss the financial details of the regulations. Why not just get in touch with the OED and suggest they change the definition of the word ‘tax’?
Would you like to chat about bituminous sands?
It seems to me, Eric, that you have accepted (though under great protest) carbon pricing as a fact of life.
Congratulations. And welcome to the new century.
Hey, I’m not vilifying Alberta. I think that what they’re doing with carbon taxation is fantastic. And I’m glad that you see carbon taxation as demonstrating leadership as well!
Eric: “…they have what’s known as a Carbon Tax. As I stated up the top here”
Actually, you stated that they had a carbon tax of $15 per ton. Which has been shown to be a silly claim. And then you go on about not wanting to look at the financial details while not accepting that they define the point under discussion.
I’m happy to see the SGER regulations tightened for large emitters, and also the implementation of a new broad carbon tax in Alberta. Great progress. No vilification. Congratulations to Alberta.
I join others in welcoming you to this century.
I’ve forwarded all of your compliments on to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. Noting how appreciative you all are regarding their leadership on the carbon tax file. The expansion of the tax by the NDP, to the pockets of all Albertans will equitably spread the burden. Let’s all hope they manage to find a way, as Rachel Motley says, to get their product to tidewater.