I blame Stephane Dion and Kyoto. To be clear, I don’t mean Dion’s dog, Kyoto. I mean the Kyoto Protocol.
Ever since Kyoto [the protocol] came into our lives, Canadians have been led to believe that environmental change is inextricably linked to the exchange of money. Climate change necessitates global deals that create havoc on the economies of individual countries, emissions trading schemes and complicated carbon taxes. This, we are told, is the only way we can save our planet from the inevitable destruction that Al Gore has predicted.
Once we were convinced of that, it was just a short step for Dion and the Liberals to bring out the carbon tax: Anyone and any industry that dares to emit carbons will have to pay—whether it’s big industry paying billions of dollars or individual Canadians paying out thousands more each year for food, gas, hydro, etc.
Some Canadians actually think this is a good idea. But before we jump on board the carbon tax bandwagon, we should consider what has happened in other countries that have already implemented some version of a carbon tax. It was reported this week that Scandinavian countries have been using carbon taxes since the early 1990s, yet the results are less than convincing.
Norway’s taxes led to a 43 per cent increase in emissions. Sweden showed a nine per cent reduction in carbon emissions—but its heavy manufacturers continue to pump out greenhouse gasses at will, because Sweden only taxes consumers.
Denmark’s emissions fell 15 per cent from 1990 to 2005, largely because it has embraced wind power and eliminated 25 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.
In England, a host of environmental taxes and charges mean that the average British motorist now pays nearly $2,000 in fuel taxes per year. Energy costs have risen by 20 per cent and it is estimated that British businesses now pay an estimated $45 billion annually in green fees and taxes.
The idea behind carbon taxes is that they can be used to shape consumer behaviour. But as long as consumers or even industries are willing to pay the tax, they can continue to pollute at will.
So carbon taxes aren’t a guarantee of taking action on the environment. Carbon credits are also talked about as though they have some sort of impact on climate change.
The idea is to balance your carbon emissions by making an investment in some program that supposedly does something to reduce carbon emissions somewhere or at some time in the future. But the carbon offset industry is unregulated and, as a result, there are a host of speculative ideas and ludicrous theories that are being financed.
An unfortunate example is that of the English band, Coldplay.
They became environmental heroes when they promised fans a carbon-neutral world tour and publicly purchased 10,000 mango trees in India to offset carbon emissions from travel and concerts.
A year later, it was found that many of the trees had either died or never been planted in the first place.
There is little evidence that carbon taxes and carbon credits do anything to save the environment, and we are wasting a lot of valuable time and resources in trying to implement them.
Given their dubious record, why are we wasting our time even considering them? We don’t need more government bureaucracy, we need more environmental awareness.
Ockham’s razor is the philosophical theory that essentially says the simplest idea is usually the best. Applying it to climate change, there are a number of things Canadians can do now that will have a positive impact on the environment.
For example, installing a water-saving showerhead can save a family of three up to 190,000 litres of water and $190 in heating costs in one year.
Water-saving toilets save 45,000 litres of water for a family of three and reduce water usage by 60 – 80 per cent.
A programmable thermostat can save up to 10 per cent of heating costs in one year. Every ton of recycled newspaper saves 30,000 litres of water and 4,000 kW of electricity—enough to power an average three-bedroom home.
Each ton of recycled aluminum (e.g. pop cans) saves 75 per cent of the electricity needed to create new aluminum, resulting in a 95 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide gases released.
Each ton of recycled glass saves 50 per cent of the energy and 50 per cent of the water pollution required to produce new glass.
Thermal-pane windows can save up to 15 per cent of annual energy costs and proper insulation can save another 15 – 30 per cent, depending on the age and condition of the home. Frontloading washing machines use one-half of the water and electricity used by conventional top-loading machines.
These measures are not controversial or costly; they have an immediate, positive impact on the environment and they are practical, common-sense solutions that every Canadian can undertake.
So why do we insist on talking about taxing Canadians instead of helping Canadians to do the simplest things that actually help the environment?
Carbon taxes are just an environmental-warrior’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes, and now the truth is out: There’s nothing there.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
