The recent imposition of carbon taxes on fossil fuels in British Columbia is just the beginning of the beginning. The government has already indicated that these taxes will triple by 2012 – gasoline, for example, will start at 2.4 cents per litre or $10.00 per tonne and rise to 7.2 or $30.00 per tonne.
Just the fact that such taxes have been implemented is nearly revolutionary. Other taxes and a cap-and-trade system to discourage carbon dioxide emissions are to be announced in future months. Environmentalists and climatologists are ecstatic. And so they should be. Like the first step of a long journey, the moment is historic.
But, however brave the gesture, such a journey requires an assessment of the complications and challenges of the distance we have to travel. Objections and reservations about any carbon reducing measures need to be weighed in the context of this perspective.
The following comments are from Professor William Rees, originator of the "eco footprint" concept that measures our individual impact on the planet. "Nobody doubts what got us into this mess: in the 20th century alone the human population quadrupled to over six billion, energy use (mostly fossil fuel) increased by a factor of 16, fish catches (but not fish) increased 35-fold, industrial production expanded 40-fold, agricultural output exploded, etc., and all corresponding waste streams ballooned by equivalent multiples. Result? Soils erode 10 to hundreds of times faster than they develop, the oceans are emptying and acidifying, biodiversity is imploding, natural gas and petroleum are being depleted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are a third higher than in pre-industrial times and the climate is going into convulsions" (The Tyee, Feb. 26/08).
So, how do we get out of this mess?
Most of this mess can be directly or indirectly linked to the burning of fossil fuels and the heating effect of the densifying blanket of carbon dioxide enshrouding the planet. Rees agrees with many other academics and scientists that, if we are to escape the effects of catastrophic climate change, we have to avoid a 2°C rise in temperature. And we can only do this is by cutting CO2 emissions 80-90% by mid-century.
The challenge is huge. But optimists like Guy Dauncey of Victoria's Sustainable Energy Association (see Econews #179, Our Journey to Zero Carbon, at www.earthfuture.com/econews) believes we can meet these targets, at least in BC. He expects that carbon taxes will have to rise to at least $250 per tonne, or 58 cents on a litre of gasoline. And even that may not be enough to curtail gasoline consumption because of its "infinite elasticity of demand" – we simply pay what we have to pay.
Dauncey even suggests a "windfall profit tax" on oil companies, and the investment of that money into mass transit systems, bicycle routes and energy-efficient technologies. He sees a future of small electric cars and local gardens in back yards, in community land and on rooftops. He envisions boulevards "thick with nuts, fruits and berries". Clean energy from wind, solar, tidal and geothermal will become the rule rather than the exception. "Zero Carbon Buildings" that require almost no heat are already being mandated by code in Germany, Britain and parts of America. In Berkeley and San Francisco, every building that is renovated or sold must be energy updated, providing an energy saving of 25 to 50 percent. Hopes are high for a new "Green Building Code" being devised for BC.
As for carbon taxes, so far the BC government has insisted that the taxes be revenue neutral ‹ the approximate amount of carbon tax we each pay will be returned as tax savings and credits. While this may be politically comfortable, it is ecologically unwise. If we spend the returned carbon tax on air trips or consumer goods, we may generate more carbon than the tax reduces. At best, the effect may be, as Professor Rees notes, "impact neutrality".
A smarter strategy would be tax shifting, a kind of tax neutrality that would levy higher fees on carbon emitting products and activities but reduce them on carbon reducing products and activities. Tax shifting would increase taxes on behaviours we don't want but decrease them on behaviours we do want. Raise taxes on gasoline but lower them on bicycles, thermal-pane windows, insulation, solar panels, electric vehicles, energy research and green technologies. Transfer carbon taxes to places that will reduce carbon production. Metro Vancouver traffic, for example, presently generates about 5.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Use the estimated $1.85 billion of BC's first carbon tax to fund public transit and reduce fares ‹ free transit in Metro Vancouver or any city with bus service would have huge practical and symbolic significance.
Yes, people in rural regions may feel neglected. Having to drive great distances will become increasingly expensive. Fuel costs for truckers are going to rise ‹ those costs will eventually be passed on to consumers as part of a cost-shifting process that will restructure our economic system toward carbon neutrality.
If we are to think in larger and more strategic terms, we will have to direct funding to those places which yield the greatest reductions in carbon dioxide output. Everyone, whether they live in BC's hinterlands or in downtown Vancouver, share the same planet and will be subject to the stresses from global warming and climate change. Part of our adaptation to carbon taxes will require a change in attitude from values that are self-centric to those that are Gaia-centric. Welcome to the beginning of the beginning.