Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the people-voting-for-more-taxes dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The defeat of carbon pricing in Washington State contrasts with its northern neighbor, where carbon taxes are now the rule.

The victory of climate change-denying Republican candidate Donald Trump was one of two big setbacks for U.S. climate policy earlier this month. The other was the resounding defeat of Washington State's Initiative 732, which sought to prove that using fees on carbon emissions to cut existing taxes could provide bipartisan appeal for what economists consider to be the most efficient mechanism to cut greenhouse gas emissions: carbon taxes.

Washington State rejected the idea of a carbon tax by 59 percent to 41. In sharp contrast, just across the world's longest border, carbon taxes are attracting politically diverse support. Four-fifths of Canadians will live in provinces with such taxes in 2017, and in 2018 all Canadians could be paying a carbon tax.

Both Washington State's defeated initiative and Canada's growing comfort with carbon pricing have their origins in North America's first carbon tax, which British Columbia's provincial government launched in 2008. The British Columbia tax started at C$10 (U.S.$7.40) per metric ton of carbon dioxide on fossil fuels consumed in the province, and it ratcheted up to C$30 per metric ton by 2012. The tax is revenue-neutral, with proceeds used to cut corporate and personal income taxes.

[Continues...]

Most academic studies find that British Columbia's tax is reducing carbon emissions by 5 to 15 percent without hurting economic growth, and that a special tax break to offset its impact on low-income families has succeeded. "The tax appears to be highly progressive," says Nicholas Rivers, an expert in energy and economic modeling at the University of Ottawa.

Likewise, the Washington tax was to start next year at $15 per metric ton (adding, for example, about 15 cents to every gallon of gasoline), then rise to $25 in 2018 and grow annually thereafter by a further 3.5 percent plus inflation until it reached $100 per ton. Revenues were to cut existing taxes and provide tax benefits for low-income families.

The initiative garnered strong grassroots support as well as endorsements from Democratic and Republican legislators, including former Republican Senator Slade Gorton and Joe Fitzgibbon, who chairs the state legislature's environment committee. But the Washington initiative was opposed by both fossil fuel interests as well as advocacy groups that favored spending carbon revenues on development projects to ensure a "just" transition to a low-carbon economy.

In Canada, meanwhile, politicians from all major parties are pushing carbon taxes nationwide. Last month Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his Liberal Party government will institute a national carbon tax plan in 2018. And last week a contender for leader of the official opposition in Parliament, Canada's Conservative Party, unveiled a more ambitious carbon tax.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:30PM (#433240)

    look, i agree, we need to look out and take care of nature more.

    but let's be honest: nature is exploited and trampled on because it is profitable.
    if money is involved, humans will got to great and ingenious lengths to get "at it".

    i have my doubts that involving a arbitrary(!) "money solution" will do anything to protect nature more.
    rather, the people with money will continue to use resources at their discretion and the
    rest 99% will be burdened or "incentivised" to .. uhmm ... err work more.

    someone told me that someday they would sell oxygen (and indeed it was in dirty ol' tokyo in "oxygen bars")
    and i laughed but now it seems that they ARE selling oxygen ... just not directly.
    there's a "c" atom you have to remove first (well not YOU but the plants do it for free).

    so after the "global warming" scare didn't get uniformly adopted in 99%
    of the belief system of humans, the nuclear industry is trying to use the
    same treat to make fossil fuel consumption more expensive even though
    one would believe that "free market mechanism" would make fossil fuels more
    expensive "automatically".

    of course one has to realize that the world economy (often portrait as an engine)
    runs on fossil fuels and thus everything stands and falls with the availability
    and affordability of fossil fuels.
    even the value of money hinges on the availability of fossil fuels and one could
    even say that energy has replace gold as the security and underlying commodity.
    in short, the less energy is available the less money is worth.

    in the end, taxing fossil fuels even more is going to benefit rich countries, the so-called
    clean nu-clear industry and hurt and stunt developing countries...