The stars seem to be aligning for an
improved carbon tax in Alberta. Goodness knows, there's plenty of
room for improvement there.
Alberta, you will recall, was the first
jurisdiction in North America to institute a tax penalty for
greenhouse gas pollution, back in 2007. The tax was named by a
committee that obviously stayed up way too late coming to agreement:
it's called the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.
The financial penalty under SGER has
been pretty mild, the funds it raised have been poorly used and there
is no indication anywhere that it served to reduce either intensity
or total greenhouse gas emissions in the province.
The specified polluters pay $15 a tonne
for that part of their carbon pollution that exceeds a baseline. The
polluters only pay for a maximum of 12 per cent of their total
emissions, and one document I found said it only costs the companies
$1.80 a tonne to meet the targets.
The money went into a tech fund that
mostly paid for research to help energy companies improve their own
oil and gas production. The tax improved the lives of zero Albertans
— except for those who administered the program and accessed the
money. Zero as well, for the environment.
Still, the philosophy behind the plan
was sound.
Globally, about 80 per cent of all
greenhouse gas emissions are produced by consumers. We drive cars, we
turn on our coffee makers in the morning, we heat our homes in the
winter. Everything we do has a carbon footprint.
But the global numbers don't apply in
Alberta. Because of the energy intensity of Alberta's heavy industry,
our province produces a whopping 36 per cent of all the greenhouse
gases produced in Canada. Our oilsands projects trump the influence
of consumer emissions in our province, plus that of Ontario, or probably more.
That's why Suncor CEO Steve Williams is
on board with a new carbon tax for Alberta. That also influenced how
prime minister Stephen Harper recently set a national goal for Canada
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent in 15 years.
Canada simply can't become a better
global citizen until we solve the problem of how to get those 168
billion barrels of oil out of the oilsands, using less energy.
Williams agrees to a carbon tax, but he
wants it to be universal. He wants the consumers to be involved. That
serves his purposes, because the vast majority of his customers burn Suncor's oil outside of Canada.
The federal government's plan is to
help Suncor and all the other oilsands conglomerates buy carbon
credits on the international market. No cap-and-trade for Canadians,
no sir, no way — but globally, the Harper government makes it the
cornerstone of our emissions reduction program. Go figure.
In the past, Albertans derided a carbon
tax as merely a cash transfer from Alberta to the feds. Prime
minister Harper wants to go that one better — by transferring the
money right out of Canada.
I say we need a hybrid of the plans.
Williams is right: consumers do need to
know that what they do has a pollution price. In British Columbia,
that price (their carbon tax) replaces part of their income tax
system. Ride a bike to work, reduce your taxes. Lower the thermostat
a bit in the winter, reduce your taxes. Waste less, reduce your
taxes.
But that can't be the total answer in
Alberta. We could be pushing our bikes through deep snow (I've done
it, and it's hard), and shivering in our homes all winter, and still
not make a significant dent in Alberta's total emissions, because of
the oilsands.
Nobody can reasonably suggest we leave
the oilsands in the ground. No country sitting on 168 billion barrels
of crude would do that. None.
So if carbon credits need to be bought,
why not buy them from me? OK, and you.
We appear to have consensus here, so
tax both consumers and the big producers. Use the money to both
reduce the burden of other taxes and to encourage more non-fossil
energy sources. I can adapt my behaviour to fit the program.
But more, make it easy for me to put a
few solar panels on my house and garage. Pay me the full market rate
for all the solar power that I don't use. Let the big power producers
have a carbon credit from that, which they can sell.
The technology is improving rapidly for
at-home storage of solar power, and industrial-grade storage of wind
power. There's a huge potential for both total greenhouse gas
reduction and carbon credits to offset Alberta's unique burden from
oilsands production.
I could live with that, could you?
Isn't that the philosophy behind what both Suncor CEO Steve Williams
and prime minister Stephen Harper say they want? So if the consensus already
exists for this, do it.
But let the consumers who want to
become carbon conservers benefit — in cash, directly. That's the
only way the plan will actually work.
No comments:
Post a Comment