Ironically I was reading the Free Press's June the 26th article that Mosquito Fogging would begin this Friday while literally being swarmed by a herd of mosquitoes.
I was in Lockport waiting on the side of Highway 9 waiting for the Beaver Bus (Let me assure the readership that it is a well known fact among Lockportians that mosquito counts are always higher in Lockport).
At this point a man in a truck drove by, briefly stopping to shout: "Don't the mosquitoes bother you?" I quickly retorted: "No, they can be annoying, but I just deal with them.”
As reported in the article the level of West Nile carrying mosquitoes is low, so we are basically spraying for so called "nuisance mosquitoes". I pondered to myself: "Does any other species on the planet think as we do? “
As outlandish as it sounds, what if the trees were to uproot themselves and to systematically start attacking humanity. They could make a pretty good argument that humanities tendency to cut down trees is quite a nuisance to the both their deciduous and non-deciduous brethren alike.
Is humanity a cut above? Or are we just too ignorant and egotistical to see beyond ourselves?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thoughts on the St. Patricks Day Canadian Election
Last nights by-election was overall relatively uneventful. As expected the Liberals won three of the four seats that were up for grabs.
The Greens continued to surge up in the polls finishing neck and neck with the NDP in most ridings (see my blog below that was originally published in the Brandon Sun, on October 13th, 2007).
However what stands out the most from last night by-election, is not what these results mean for any pending election, rather it is apathetic nature of the electorate.
By-elections typically have low-voter turn-outs, but last nights overall turn-out rate was 27.7% of registered voters. This does not bode well for our democratic system. At the end of the day it was the ballots of 14.1% of the registered voters that elected the four new MPs. Including the Greens, there are four parties accross Canada (and five in Quebec) that have a chance elect Members to Parliament. Clearly an electoral system that is designed for a two-party sytem is out of touch with the current political realities. Perhaps if we instituted some form of Proportional Representation we could finally convince people that it was worthwhile to go out an vote.
JRB
The Greens continued to surge up in the polls finishing neck and neck with the NDP in most ridings (see my blog below that was originally published in the Brandon Sun, on October 13th, 2007).
However what stands out the most from last night by-election, is not what these results mean for any pending election, rather it is apathetic nature of the electorate.
By-elections typically have low-voter turn-outs, but last nights overall turn-out rate was 27.7% of registered voters. This does not bode well for our democratic system. At the end of the day it was the ballots of 14.1% of the registered voters that elected the four new MPs. Including the Greens, there are four parties accross Canada (and five in Quebec) that have a chance elect Members to Parliament. Clearly an electoral system that is designed for a two-party sytem is out of touch with the current political realities. Perhaps if we instituted some form of Proportional Representation we could finally convince people that it was worthwhile to go out an vote.
JRB
Ontario is going Green, Canada may follow
As published in the Brandon Sun, October 13, 2007
The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) may not have won a seat in the 2007 Ontario provincial election, but after their impressive showing it would be difficult to deny that they are indeed becoming a political threat within Ontario and quite possibly across the entire country.
The Green Party's best showing was in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where candidate Shane Jolley gave the incumbent Progressive Conservative candidate, Bill Murdoch, a run for his money. Shane finished second with 33.1 percent of the vote, garnering more than twice as many votes as the third-place Liberal candidate, Selwyn Hicks.
The Greens also made a strong showing in the riding of Guelph where candidate Ben Polley polled third with 19.5 percent of the vote, just behind second-place PC candidate Bob Senechal with 24.7 percent of the vote and ahead of NDP candidate Karan Mann-Bowers with 13.9 percent.
The GPO ran candidates in all 107 ridings and overall they garnered eight percent of the total popular vote. In 18 different ridings, the Greens finished in third place, placing ahead of both NDP and PC candidates. In an additional 10 ridings, the GPO was within two percent of finishing third.
Most political analysts argued that the Ontario election would offer few insights into the possible outcome of the looming federal election. The strong showing of the GPO, however, should be enough to make analysts pause and consider how the Green Party of Canada will fare when Canadians go back to the polls.
Perhaps they may even win a seat!
JRB
The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) may not have won a seat in the 2007 Ontario provincial election, but after their impressive showing it would be difficult to deny that they are indeed becoming a political threat within Ontario and quite possibly across the entire country.
The Green Party's best showing was in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where candidate Shane Jolley gave the incumbent Progressive Conservative candidate, Bill Murdoch, a run for his money. Shane finished second with 33.1 percent of the vote, garnering more than twice as many votes as the third-place Liberal candidate, Selwyn Hicks.
The Greens also made a strong showing in the riding of Guelph where candidate Ben Polley polled third with 19.5 percent of the vote, just behind second-place PC candidate Bob Senechal with 24.7 percent of the vote and ahead of NDP candidate Karan Mann-Bowers with 13.9 percent.
The GPO ran candidates in all 107 ridings and overall they garnered eight percent of the total popular vote. In 18 different ridings, the Greens finished in third place, placing ahead of both NDP and PC candidates. In an additional 10 ridings, the GPO was within two percent of finishing third.
Most political analysts argued that the Ontario election would offer few insights into the possible outcome of the looming federal election. The strong showing of the GPO, however, should be enough to make analysts pause and consider how the Green Party of Canada will fare when Canadians go back to the polls.
Perhaps they may even win a seat!
JRB
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Your own backyard anaerobic digester!!!
Ever wanted to create your own composting toilet, backyard anaerobic digester or small scale organic waste water treatment system?
Biorealis Systems Inc., ("...an Alaskan professional corporation providing R&D, ecological engineering, and energy management consulting services, with particular emphasis on the practical application of small scale appropriate technologies and designs which emulate natural biological systems."), has designs on its webpage outlining how to create your own composting toilet, anaerobic digester, or waste water treatment facility?
This site is an invaluable resource for the do-it yourself guru, interested in designing a small-scale home-based system for dealing with their own excrement and organic waste. Founded in 1984 by Robert L. Crosby Jr., Biorealis Systems Inc. aims to freely distribute information on how to build small-scale, low-cost and reliable ecological products in the hopes that large numbers of people will purchase (or build) and these ecological products in their own economic self-interest. I would highly recommend that all treehuggers go and take a look
Shown here is a design for a backyard anaerobic digester. The site also provides a design calculator that enables users to approximate methane production so that they can determine the appropriate sized system for their locality.
JRB
Monday, March 10, 2008
Carbon Sequestration a Quick-fix
Environment Minister John Baird's announcement that carbon sequestration will be mandatory, while applauded, requires further examination.
Carbon sequestration does provide a short-term solution to reduce carbon emissions, however it does not provide a long-term solution because ultimately we will run out of petroleum, fossil fuel derived methane, and coal (at least if we continue consume these resources as we presently do).
A long-term solution recognizes these limits; a truly long term solution would be to create a world free from fossil fuel dependence.
Now, I certainly understand how unlikely it is that humanity will quit using fossil-fuels tomorrow. Nonetheless, this is the aim that we MUST keep in sight!
The sequestration of carbon, is a relatively new and untested technology that literally entails pumping vast amounts of liquified C0² underground in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas fields, underground saline aquifers (salty water/rock layers), or abandoned coal mines. It remains unclear however if the stored C0² will leak back into the atmosphere, or acidify aquifers. Storing vast quantities of C0² underground literally creates a ticking time bomb.
In 1986 volcanic activity caused approximately 1 km³of naturally-trapped carbon dioxide to bubble up from under Lake Nyos, Cameroon, causing the suffocation of 1700 people and 3500 livestock in the surrounding areas. Even proponents of carbon capture recognize that, “[a] similar event from a breached C0² storage is the worst-case scenario for CCS-technology.” (Höök, 10). Does it not seem conceivable that an earthquake near a C0² storage site could cause a similar disaster?
C0² leakage from storage sites would of course also further contribute to climate change. According to Peter Montague, Executive Director of the Environmental Research Foundation, 'if 25% of the worlds remaining carbon (petroleum, natural gas, coal, and peat) was sequestered, any leakage above 0.16% could eventually result in runaway global warming; and if 75% of carbon was sequestered this percentage drops to 0.05%.' As Mr. Montague questions “Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year? ...the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat.”
Following the announcement, most oil and coal industry experts in the media were surprisingly accepting of the new regulation. (Perhaps $108 per barrel oil has spurred the optimistic mood.) The lurking question seemed to be: “Who would pay for the increased costs of production?...Oil producers? Consumers? Government?” My intuition tells me that the government will end up paying, at least a portion of the cost. Will a further subsidization of the oil industry helps us to create a fossil fuel independence?
At the end of the day, carbon sequestration is quite literally an attempt to sweep everything under the rug. It is an attempt to bury our C0² emissions under the ground, rather than reducing them. The Conservatives likewise are sweeping the politically hostile question of gthe tar sands developmenth under the rug. Mandatory carbon sequestration legitimizes the tar sands and coal-burning because it provides a neat and tidy solution to the emissions created by the activities (at least so long as nothing goes wrong).
The tar sands however come with their own set of risks. Firstly the “development of the tar sands” is resulting in the clearing of vast tracks of forest. Trees provide an efficient and natural means of carbon sequestration, by clearing vast tracks of forest we are essentially reducing the carbon sequestering capacity of the planet. Furthermore as noted in a recent report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resoures (chaired by Conservative MP Lee Richardson, 42), “...two to four and a half barrels of water are nevertheless required, even with water recycling, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.” The claims of the oil industry that this land and water can be “reclaimed” is dubious. I ask of the readership: What is more important to sustaining life on the planet: oil or fresh water?
Now to reiterate, I recognize that the sequestration of carbon does provide some potential to reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future; however I hope that this does not distract society from the longer term goal of weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuels.
Solar, wind, bio-gas generation, wave power generation, small-scale hydro: there are numerous ways of generating energy. I suppose a good analogy would be alcoholics who convince themselves that they need just one more drink, when ultimately they need to quit drinking, period! I can only hope that we have the wisdom to check into a good program to free ourselves from fossil fuels.
Sources:
1. Mikael Höök (2007). "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" UHDSG
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
2. Peter Montague (2007). “Carbon Sequestration and the precautionary principle”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65
3. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources (2007). “The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development” Government of Canada.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/rnnr04-e.pdf
JRB
Carbon sequestration does provide a short-term solution to reduce carbon emissions, however it does not provide a long-term solution because ultimately we will run out of petroleum, fossil fuel derived methane, and coal (at least if we continue consume these resources as we presently do).
A long-term solution recognizes these limits; a truly long term solution would be to create a world free from fossil fuel dependence.
Now, I certainly understand how unlikely it is that humanity will quit using fossil-fuels tomorrow. Nonetheless, this is the aim that we MUST keep in sight!
The sequestration of carbon, is a relatively new and untested technology that literally entails pumping vast amounts of liquified C0² underground in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas fields, underground saline aquifers (salty water/rock layers), or abandoned coal mines. It remains unclear however if the stored C0² will leak back into the atmosphere, or acidify aquifers. Storing vast quantities of C0² underground literally creates a ticking time bomb.
In 1986 volcanic activity caused approximately 1 km³of naturally-trapped carbon dioxide to bubble up from under Lake Nyos, Cameroon, causing the suffocation of 1700 people and 3500 livestock in the surrounding areas. Even proponents of carbon capture recognize that, “[a] similar event from a breached C0² storage is the worst-case scenario for CCS-technology.” (Höök, 10). Does it not seem conceivable that an earthquake near a C0² storage site could cause a similar disaster?
C0² leakage from storage sites would of course also further contribute to climate change. According to Peter Montague, Executive Director of the Environmental Research Foundation, 'if 25% of the worlds remaining carbon (petroleum, natural gas, coal, and peat) was sequestered, any leakage above 0.16% could eventually result in runaway global warming; and if 75% of carbon was sequestered this percentage drops to 0.05%.' As Mr. Montague questions “Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year? ...the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat.”
Following the announcement, most oil and coal industry experts in the media were surprisingly accepting of the new regulation. (Perhaps $108 per barrel oil has spurred the optimistic mood.) The lurking question seemed to be: “Who would pay for the increased costs of production?...Oil producers? Consumers? Government?” My intuition tells me that the government will end up paying, at least a portion of the cost. Will a further subsidization of the oil industry helps us to create a fossil fuel independence?
At the end of the day, carbon sequestration is quite literally an attempt to sweep everything under the rug. It is an attempt to bury our C0² emissions under the ground, rather than reducing them. The Conservatives likewise are sweeping the politically hostile question of gthe tar sands developmenth under the rug. Mandatory carbon sequestration legitimizes the tar sands and coal-burning because it provides a neat and tidy solution to the emissions created by the activities (at least so long as nothing goes wrong).
The tar sands however come with their own set of risks. Firstly the “development of the tar sands” is resulting in the clearing of vast tracks of forest. Trees provide an efficient and natural means of carbon sequestration, by clearing vast tracks of forest we are essentially reducing the carbon sequestering capacity of the planet. Furthermore as noted in a recent report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resoures (chaired by Conservative MP Lee Richardson, 42), “...two to four and a half barrels of water are nevertheless required, even with water recycling, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.” The claims of the oil industry that this land and water can be “reclaimed” is dubious. I ask of the readership: What is more important to sustaining life on the planet: oil or fresh water?
Now to reiterate, I recognize that the sequestration of carbon does provide some potential to reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future; however I hope that this does not distract society from the longer term goal of weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuels.
Solar, wind, bio-gas generation, wave power generation, small-scale hydro: there are numerous ways of generating energy. I suppose a good analogy would be alcoholics who convince themselves that they need just one more drink, when ultimately they need to quit drinking, period! I can only hope that we have the wisdom to check into a good program to free ourselves from fossil fuels.
Sources:
1. Mikael Höök (2007). "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" UHDSG
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
2. Peter Montague (2007). “Carbon Sequestration and the precautionary principle”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65
3. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources (2007). “The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development” Government of Canada.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/rnnr04-e.pdf
JRB
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
B.C.'s Carbon Tax
Pending legislative approval and commencing on July 1st, 2008, British Columbia will become the first North American district to impose a carbon tax. Of course there are critics of this tax, but the imposition of this tax is monumental in that it sets an important precedent that will hopefully be copied by the other Provincial, Territorial, and State Governments.
Initially the Carbon Tax will be charged at a rate of $10 per tonne, but it is slated to rise $5 per annum until the tax reached $30 per tonne in 2012. The tax will also be tax neutral, meaning that the $1.849 billion of estimated revenue generated, will not be spent on new government expenditures, but will instead be to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes elsewhere. British Columbians will pay 2% less in income tax in 2008 and 5% less in 2009 on the first $70,000 of earnings, with further tax reductions anticipated in 2010. British Columbian businesses will also see the tax reductions: with corporate income tax being reduced from 12% to 10% by 2011, and the small business tax rate being reduced from 4.5% to 2.5% by 2011. To help offset the regressive tendencies of a Carbon Tax the B.C. Government will also pay a Climate Action Credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child to low income households.
[Click for budget overview: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224.htm, Click for carbon tax: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment4.htm]
Of course trial and error is somewhat natural whenever trying something new; and the new carbon tax has some pitfalls.
For instance, in addition to the aforementioned tax adjustments, every British Columbian resident will also receive a one-time Climate Action Dividend of a $100. The Governments claims that they “...hope that British Columbians will apply the funds toward purchases that can help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, by doing so, also reduce the amount of carbon tax they would otherwise pay.” It seems more likely, however, that the $100 dollars in cold cash is more about making a new tax more palatable to the public.
The NDP have questioned this new tax arguing that it unfairly penalizes individuals while leaving the large greenhouse emitters unregulated. To its defence Cambell's Liberals have indicated that they intend to deal with large emitters through a cap and trade system, but the this cap and trade system will not be implemented immediately. “You believe it when you see it!” in politics.
Others question how effective the carbon tax will be in changing behaviours. Is 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline enough of a financial burden to induce people to walk, cycle or take the bus to work? Gasoline prices have risen considerably more over the past three years, and yet there does not seem to be a drastic reduction in the number of vehicles on the road.
In a 1996 article in the Energy Journal, Molly Espey surveys numerous studies between 1936 and 1986 on the price elasticity of gasoline, finding “price elasticity estimates for the demand for gasoline of the United States range from -0.02 to -1.59, averaging -0.53...”. Assuming this average is reasonably accurate , with gas costing roughly a dollar a 2. 4% (or 2.4 cent per litre) increase in the price of gas would translate into a 1.272 %be decrease in the demand for gasoline, eventually rising to a 3.816% reduction in the more recent study gasoline demand as the tax per tonne is increased.
In a more recent study researchers compare U.S. gasoline price elasticities from 1975 to 1980, with price elasticities from 2001-2006 and find that the demand for gasoline has became more inelastic; indicating that American consumers have become less responsive to changes in gasoline prices. Whether this is a result of changes in land use patterns, a greater reliance on the personal automobile, or higher discretionary incomes is matter of some debate. [http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucei/csem/CSEMWP-159/]
The inelastic nature of gasoline demand means that it is unlikely that this carbon tax, on its own, will inspire the carbon reductions necessary to seriously combat climate change. However it is a step in the right direction.
In addition to implementing a carbon-tax the government has also committed itself to spending more than $1 billion dollars on capital and operating costs to help fight climate change. These include: $370 million for public transportation; $98 million to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy-efficient choices for their homes, businesses and vehicles; 130 million to make the British Columbian public sector carbon-neutral; 98 million for climate change research; $111 million to develop additional climate action solutions-stakeholder consultations, establish and fund the Citizens’ Conservation Council, assist the Climate Action Team, and support public outreach to promote greener choices; and the government is also providing Provincial Sales Tax exemptions for a variety of products like Energy-Star a ppliances, biodiesel, aerodynamic devices for commercial tractor-trailers, electric-assisted two and three wheel cycles, and non-motorized adult tricycles. [http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment3.htm]
There is always room for improvement in life, and the carbon tax concept will undoubtedly be refined over time and across varying situations. British Columbians, however, should be proud that there government has taken a bold step, that may very well make taxation more fair, and spur innovation in the burgeoning green economy. Now if only we could see the same sort of political guff from the other governments in North America, most especially from Mr. Flaherty when he introduces the Canadian Federal budget today.
JRB
Print Sources:
1. Espey, Molly. "Explaining The Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-Analysis" Energy Journal; 1996, Vol. 17 Issue 3
2. Oates, Wallace E. "Green Tax1es: Can We Protect the Envir1onment and Improve the Tax System at the Same Time?" Southern Economic Journal; 1995, Vol. 61, No. 4
Initially the Carbon Tax will be charged at a rate of $10 per tonne, but it is slated to rise $5 per annum until the tax reached $30 per tonne in 2012. The tax will also be tax neutral, meaning that the $1.849 billion of estimated revenue generated, will not be spent on new government expenditures, but will instead be to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes elsewhere. British Columbians will pay 2% less in income tax in 2008 and 5% less in 2009 on the first $70,000 of earnings, with further tax reductions anticipated in 2010. British Columbian businesses will also see the tax reductions: with corporate income tax being reduced from 12% to 10% by 2011, and the small business tax rate being reduced from 4.5% to 2.5% by 2011. To help offset the regressive tendencies of a Carbon Tax the B.C. Government will also pay a Climate Action Credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child to low income households.
[Click for budget overview: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224.htm, Click for carbon tax: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment4.htm]
Of course trial and error is somewhat natural whenever trying something new; and the new carbon tax has some pitfalls.
For instance, in addition to the aforementioned tax adjustments, every British Columbian resident will also receive a one-time Climate Action Dividend of a $100. The Governments claims that they “...hope that British Columbians will apply the funds toward purchases that can help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, by doing so, also reduce the amount of carbon tax they would otherwise pay.” It seems more likely, however, that the $100 dollars in cold cash is more about making a new tax more palatable to the public.
The NDP have questioned this new tax arguing that it unfairly penalizes individuals while leaving the large greenhouse emitters unregulated. To its defence Cambell's Liberals have indicated that they intend to deal with large emitters through a cap and trade system, but the this cap and trade system will not be implemented immediately. “You believe it when you see it!” in politics.
Some academics have questioned the efficacy of taxing fossil fuels directly. Dr. Wallace E. Oates of the University of Maryland argues:
...whenever possible we should design the tax to address directly the polluting act. This may in some instances require some ingenuity. To take one example, automobile emissions are a primary source of urban air pollution in many countries. It is tempting to regard such emissions from a particular vehicle as beyond our monitoring capacities and settle for a tax on gasoline. But such a tax, while perhaps discouraging driving to some extent, fails to provide needed incentives to purchase automobiles with desirable emission characteristics and, equally important, to maintain them in ways to keep pollutant emissions at low levels. But there are taking place important advances in monitoring technology. It may soon be possible through periodic inspections (or perhaps even remote detection devices) to measure the levels of emissions from individual vehicles and then, with some measure of the miles driven, to fashion tax bills that reflect reasonable accurately actual emissions.
Others question how effective the carbon tax will be in changing behaviours. Is 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline enough of a financial burden to induce people to walk, cycle or take the bus to work? Gasoline prices have risen considerably more over the past three years, and yet there does not seem to be a drastic reduction in the number of vehicles on the road.
In a 1996 article in the Energy Journal, Molly Espey surveys numerous studies between 1936 and 1986 on the price elasticity of gasoline, finding “price elasticity estimates for the demand for gasoline of the United States range from -0.02 to -1.59, averaging -0.53...”. Assuming this average is reasonably accurate , with gas costing roughly a dollar a 2. 4% (or 2.4 cent per litre) increase in the price of gas would translate into a 1.272 %be decrease in the demand for gasoline, eventually rising to a 3.816% reduction in the more recent study gasoline demand as the tax per tonne is increased.
In a more recent study researchers compare U.S. gasoline price elasticities from 1975 to 1980, with price elasticities from 2001-2006 and find that the demand for gasoline has became more inelastic; indicating that American consumers have become less responsive to changes in gasoline prices. Whether this is a result of changes in land use patterns, a greater reliance on the personal automobile, or higher discretionary incomes is matter of some debate. [http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucei/csem/CSEMWP-159/]
The inelastic nature of gasoline demand means that it is unlikely that this carbon tax, on its own, will inspire the carbon reductions necessary to seriously combat climate change. However it is a step in the right direction.
In addition to implementing a carbon-tax the government has also committed itself to spending more than $1 billion dollars on capital and operating costs to help fight climate change. These include: $370 million for public transportation; $98 million to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy-efficient choices for their homes, businesses and vehicles; 130 million to make the British Columbian public sector carbon-neutral; 98 million for climate change research; $111 million to develop additional climate action solutions-stakeholder consultations, establish and fund the Citizens’ Conservation Council, assist the Climate Action Team, and support public outreach to promote greener choices; and the government is also providing Provincial Sales Tax exemptions for a variety of products like Energy-Star a ppliances, biodiesel, aerodynamic devices for commercial tractor-trailers, electric-assisted two and three wheel cycles, and non-motorized adult tricycles. [http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment3.htm]
There is always room for improvement in life, and the carbon tax concept will undoubtedly be refined over time and across varying situations. British Columbians, however, should be proud that there government has taken a bold step, that may very well make taxation more fair, and spur innovation in the burgeoning green economy. Now if only we could see the same sort of political guff from the other governments in North America, most especially from Mr. Flaherty when he introduces the Canadian Federal budget today.
JRB
Print Sources:
1. Espey, Molly. "Explaining The Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-Analysis" Energy Journal; 1996, Vol. 17 Issue 3
2. Oates, Wallace E. "Green Tax1es: Can We Protect the Envir1onment and Improve the Tax System at the Same Time?" Southern Economic Journal; 1995, Vol. 61, No. 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)