James Hansen has studied climate change for more than 30 years. During that time, his alarm has grown steadily about the world his grandchildren will live in, as the accelerating climate crisis takes hold.
The retired NASA climatologist has been speaking about climate change since the 1980s. He now confesses that his earlier projections, while accurate about increasing global temperatures, “failed to explore how quickly this would drive an increase in extreme weather,” including very hot summers.
What does Hansen think can be done? He thinks a steadily rising carbon tax is one of the best ways to limit carbon pollution. This is why B.C.’s carbon tax received a lot of attention at an international conference of the Citizens Climate Lobby in Washington, D.C., where Hansen spoke recently.
Conference delegates were eager to hear about a climate-change policy that actually has a track record. At the conference, which included more than 450 meetings with U.S. senators, members of Congress and their aides, B.C.’s carbon tax was seen as a successful model, and one that enjoys the support of two-thirds of B.C. residents.
The three B.C. residents at the conference found themselves being asked a lot of questions about the carbon tax.
“To tell the truth, I had almost forgotten that we even had a carbon tax,” said Maple Bay resident Valerie Russell, a biology teacher at Dwight School in Shawnigan Lake. “But it didn’t take me long to realize it was seen as a big deal, as it’s a policy that has actually been tried, and five years later, seems to be making a positive impact on reducing pollution.”
B.C.’s emissions have declined about 9.9 per cent per capita since 2008, while the economy has grown slightly more than the Canadian average in the same period.
A carbon tax is one of the tools that could possibly gain support from both Republicans and Democrats in the polarized world of U.S. politics. Republicans are typically against taxes and anything that increases the size of government. However, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as B.C.’s, would return all the funds collected to residents and not increase government revenues.
The “revenue neutral” aspect appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. Many Republicans would consider the idea of a market-based tax as a way to address carbon pollution. However, some aren’t so sure they can trust the government to actually return carbon-tax revenues to the people, rather than adding it to government revenues.
Arkansas Congressman Steve Womack had a typical question — he wanted to know exactly how the money was going to get into the hands of the people. Hanging on the wall of his Capitol Hill office was a framed sign: “It’s the spending, stupid.”
There is a long way to go to reach any sort of agreement on a carbon-tax bill in the U.S., but the debate is on. Across the political spectrum, there is growing acknowledgement that climate change is a looming crisis that will have to be dealt with.
As one conservative member put it, “You can’t pollute the atmosphere for free.” If we don’t clean up our own garbage, our children and grandchildren will, under much more difficult conditions.
The carbon tax is more than simply an incentive to use less gasoline and other fossil fuels. It also acts to level the playing field for providers of wind, solar and other alternate energy. Oil, gas and coal companies still receive large taxpayer subsidies. However, once the market factors in a steadily increasing carbon tax, renewable-energy alternatives can become steadily more economically competitive.
Interestingly, several oil company CEOs have spoken out in favour of a tax. Suncor’s Rick George called for a carbon tax of $40 a ton in 2011, and Lars Bacher of Statoil Canada suggested reaching $50 a ton in March 2012.
“These are smart people,” said Hansen. They know the science and they know that climate change — more droughts, floods, increasing impacts on air, water and food — means that governments will ultimately be forced to act to reduce emissions. The oil companies would like this to be done in a way that is fair and predictable, and allows them to factor it into their business plans.
Finally, it’s clear that B.C.’s carbon tax could be improved. Exports are not subject to the tax, so B.C.’s significant coal exports get away with polluting for free. Some of the U.S. proposals would address this.
If B.C.’s tax were gradually ramped up beyond its current level of $30 a ton, the incentive to reduce carbon pollution would be greater. Again, there would be no overall cost to taxpayers as long as revenue neutrality is maintained.
Blaise Salmon is a local financial adviser and a volunteer with the Citizens Climate Lobby.
