Presentation by Alice.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Tags: Class Topics
This entry was posted on November 25, 2009 at 8:48 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 25, 2009 at 9:12 pm |
So after class and after the EIESL presentation, I went to a workshop on Copenhagen and next steps. I wish that our class was after that workshop because I left much more aware of the issue around Climate Change and Canada’s stance on the topic.
One of the issues that was linked up for me was Canada’s role as a “blocker” at international talks and the reason behind it. The reason is the oil sands in Alberta. Basically, only 3% of oil has been extracted up to this point, and experts are saying that Canada’s economy could be sustained by the oil sands for about 100 years. So on the one hand we have economic prosperity, but on the other we have environmental degradation.
Another issue was: the Suzuki Foundation recently came out with a paper on economic prosperity and fulfilling our commitments on carbon emission standards (25% below the 1990 level, by 2020 for Canada as a whole and 10% below the 1990 level, by 2020 for B.C.). If we lower our emissions by drastically increasing the carbon tax from 2010 in increments to 2020 to about a $200 tax per barrel, our economy will experience a growth of 25% in GDP – per annum, it’s around 2%. On the other hand, if we continue life as is (no more economic downturns, sporadic wars, etc), we would experience a total GDP growth of 29% – per annum, it’s 2-3%.
OMG – it’s not that big! Basically, The Suzuki Foundation effectively argued that the economic argument against increasing the carbon tax and the effect that would have on Canada’s economy, although significant, is not drastic enough to deter our country from taking steps to cut carbon emissions.
TA DA!
November 25, 2009 at 9:25 pm |
And here’s the link to the report that the Suzuki Foundation came out with:
Climate Change, Economic Prosperity
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/reports/Climate_Leadership_Economic_Prosperity_-_Web.pdf
November 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm |
I agree that Canada’s stance on climate change is utterly poor, but I don’t entirely trust David Suzuki. I just think that it seems kindof wrong (unethical?) to charge 50 000$ if you want him to come speak at your function or class. I’m sure he’s very busy and needs to budget his time, but it seems like he’s grossly benefiting from the situation.
I think a big problem with the climate change issue, and come to think of it, development issues, is that there is so much information and things you need to know, and so many different ways of looking at the issue and so many different people telling you different things, and so many other horrible things going on in the world at the same time and which one is the most important (because we all only have so much time) that the information overloads the human senses and automatically makes me want to turn on the TV and zone out. Not to vent, or anything.
Going back to class the other day, about things we should about climate change, Andra’s comment about how we should all stop and consider out own impact and how we should invidually make an effort got me to thinking. This really has a lot to do with personal responsibility and a deeper understanding and critical reflection of how our own actions affect the rest of the world. And in turn, this critical reflection and acceptance or responsibility has a lot to do with ethics, and how to behave ethically in a world that seems to applaud self-interested tendencies. (Although if you have a sense of humour, you could consider climate change as mother nature’s way of getting back at us for indulging in our self-interests. )
As for climate action and developing countries, I think it still falls along the same lines that we’ve brought up in the past weeks. How we have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. How we have responsibilities to act and be critical of our actions when it comes to the rest of humanity. And the idea that we are all interconnected, dependent on each other, caught in a web so complex that there’s no point assigning blame because in the end we all have to deal with the problem and take responsibility for our individual and collective actions.
November 29, 2009 at 8:59 am |
Andra – to follow up on the economy point: 2 – 3 % is HUGE. Consider this, an economy that grows at 2 – 3 % is considered normal, one that grows at 5% is considered booming. In a $1.2 trillion economy (ours), 2 – 3 % means 22 – 34 Billion dollars.
So we come to the crux: adapting to climate change will hurt our economy and there is no government in the world that will tell their citizens this, especially in our current context where this means the difference between recession and prosperity.
So it brings me back to my earlier point in class – can democracy respond to climate change? I don’t think so. If not, who will and how?
December 4, 2009 at 2:10 am |
Hi Tanja,
To clarify, I meant the difference between 2% (from around 2%)and 2.5% (between 2-3%, I think in actuality is around 2.3%) is, although significant, not in the negative so it shouldn’t deter us from increasing the carbon tax per barrel.
November 30, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
Carbon tax is not always the solution b/c it’s hard to accurately calculate how much is social carbon costs of, let’s say, a barrel of oil or one extra tonne of carbon emissions. I did some research and carbon tax is only accurate in a perfect market…
I personally think that the carbon tax is not a useful way of responding DIRECTLY to climate change – it’s really an indirect way of trying to force people to reduce or rethink carbon emissions, fossil fuels, etc…
In response to Tanja’s last comment:
I think democracy can respond to climate change but if (and only if!) change comes on a whole social level where people push for the local or federal gov’ts to REALLY do something. But of course, this is all dependent on how much does the average person know about climate change, carbon taxes, emissions, renewable energy sources, economic costs of energy diversification programs…etc….
So does the movement need to be bottom up then? Is it possible to make the changes quick enough to mitigate growing climate issues?
November 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
Sorry, spelling errors…
I meant to say:
“Carbon tax is not always the solution b/c it’s hard to accurately calculate how much would the social carbon costs of, for example, a barrel of oil or one extra tonne of carbon emissions be.”
December 4, 2009 at 2:44 am |
Please add this to my prior post:
What do you guys think of celebrities or just the wealthy elite (I was listening to a discussion on CNN radio) who promote carbon tax and ask average citizens to reduce carbon emissions when they themselves have private planes and multiple gas-guzzling vehicles? And worse, has the carbon tax become a method of easing a person’s (or company’s) individual responsibility bc it may be creating a mentaility of “I can just paying higher carbon tax to ‘offset’ my higher carbon footprint”?
December 4, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
Not only is the carbon tax a seemingly indirect way to force people to think about fossil fuel emissions, it is also a politically detrimental method of trying to offset the cost onto the consumer, which just pisses people off and likely reduces the amount of concern they have for greenhouse gas emissions. From what I’ve gathered, the public’s attitude seems to be along the lines of “yes, climate change is a problem and yes, I would like to try to help bring about change, but NO I do not want to financially contribute via MORE taxes everytime I go to the pump”. I think that without drastically improving the efficiency of our public transport system (the median commute time of the average British Columbian is around a half hour) people will feel as though the government is shirking its responsibility to come up with a comprehensive solution to address climate change. There is also the issue of rural communities, where there IS no public transit and to get rid of cars is just not feasible for many citizens. I do think that this seems to unfairly and negatively affect citizens living in remote communities that generally already have a lower standard of living and less access to public services than those of us living in bustling urban centres. They definitely express frustration and resentment towards the city dwellers who have more options with regards to alternative transportation.
December 1, 2009 at 6:04 am |
Just adding to what Tanja and Alice have been saying in regards to individual responsibility and the role of govt in facing climate change, I want to just say that all of this is possible if your average citizen is aware of the situation and willing to take responsibility. This goes back to the education system. How many of us were thought something about climate change in high school? I wasn’t. Not everyone goes to university. Not everyone reads the news. So in my opinion, the best place for any movement to start is from schools. That being said, climate change has recently become a buzz word. You hear it a lot, esp. after Gore’s film came out. If you’ve heard about climate change and global warming, then it is your responsibility to do a search and educate yourself about it. In other words, people need to realize that climate change is an issue and their apathy/ignorance contribution to its enhancement.
What I also want to point is that is the issue of climate change is complex. I enjoyed Alice’s presentation esp. where she pointed out the carbon gas emission in countries such as Canada vs. China and India. How do we expect some countries who want to develop quickly to act sustainability when we ourselves don’t do or didn’t do such thing?
December 2, 2009 at 7:13 am |
I only have a short comment for this, as I definitely want to do a little more research on the topic before I attempt to formulate a stronger argument.
But, Alice’s presentation (and in-class comments by Tanja) really suggested to me that Climate Change itself has perhaps become a norm of the Elite. Carbon taxes and emissions tradings are all good and well when dealing with our own climate change issues. We have a government that can choose to somewhat enforce these regulations, companies that are legally required to act according to these regulations, consumers who can shift supply and demand by choosing green.
But what about the third world country without a government or with a government whose only interest is economic/resource extraction (some would say ours isn’t much better)? What if the more immediate needs of generating income for food trumps environmental protection?
Does it become unethical for us to force these countries to conform to our policies, knowing they won’t have the ability to “trade emissions” like a free market commodity?
These are issues that I have… I think a move towards reduction of consumption as a protocol might be a very effective one.
December 3, 2009 at 1:07 am |
I was recently on the B-Line heading to campus and sat next to a man reading a newspaper. It turned out that English was not his first language, and reading the newspaper was part of a homework assignment for an ESL class. He asked me the meaning of a few words, and I did my best to oblige with definitions. Then he asked the person sitting on his other side to explain a headline which read something to the effect of, “Harper Will Not Be Riding a White Horse to Copenhagen.” The person was unable to explain this headline, or was potentially anti-social. I found the situation somewhat concerning, though, as I think the reason they could not explain was because they did not know that “Copenhagen” was referring to a conference on climate change, and that “white horse” was a literary reference to the whole “knight in shining armour” thing, and potentially that “Harper” was referring to Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister. An unfortunate situation on multiple levels, and indicative of the truth in Iran’s statement that the average person is unaware of issues surrounding climate change. One positive aspect was that the person who was unable to explain was on public transit, so arguably doing something positive for the environment without being aware that they were doing so…and there is always the chance that the lack of explanation stemmed from anti-social feelings and not ignorance.
In addition to education contributing to awareness (and hopefully activism) about climate change, and a lack of awareness posing a barrier to action, I think the lack of short-term consequences for many people results in apathy. Slight weather changes are noticeable, but Vancouver has not been hit by a hurricane that devastated the landscape and left thousands homeless. Also, the whole ice-age scenario depicted in “The Day After Tomorrow” has yet to occur, so really, climate change seems like a problem that other people are dealing with now, or that our children/grandchildren will one day have to deal with. The carbon tax provides an immediate consequence. Garnering the public support to take the economic hit poses more of a challenge…
December 3, 2009 at 8:34 am |
I just wanted to add a bit more about Canada’s role in climate change action, or lack thereof. I article has been recently published in The Guardian regarding Canada’s embarrassing position within climate change talks. This is the link but I figured all repeat some of the important points as I doubt many people will read it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal
In reference to the Kyoto protocol:
“Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.”
Copenhagen is not the first time Canada was considered a “blocker” nation as:
“After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks”
In a rating of the world’s 60 richest nations’ climate change efforts, Canada ranked 59th! Just above Saudi Arabia.
On the topic of tar sands in Alberta, the article states: “Alberta’s tar sands operation is the world’s biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions”
“Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds, some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface.”
In response to Andra’s input, about oil from the tar sands being able to sustain Canada’s economy for another 100 years, there certainly won’t be much left to sustain after a 100 years of oil extraction. I don’t know much about Canada’s economy, and the role of oil in it, but it seems to me that the prosperity that it does bring benefits major oil corporations such as Shell and BP more than Canadian citizens. Furthermore, oil is not sustainable. What happens when the hundred years are up? Certainly my argument against the Alberta tar sands are just skimming the surface, and based on very basic research, but the justification of sustained economic prosperity for the price of serious, long-lasting environmental degradation does not seem like the right way to go.
December 4, 2009 at 2:38 am |
Sam, I think you brought up an excellent point “about oil from the tar sands being able to sustain Canada’s economy for another 100 years, there certainly won’t be much left to sustain after a 100 years of oil extraction.” I think that is exactly it. Will rightly noted of the countries whose choices regarding climate change will be “trumped” by generating an income.
Therefore, what do we do? How can we ask of less developed nations (LDCs) to even begin implementing carbon emission standards when they are also dealing with poverty, lack of infrastructure, a corrupt government, to name a few of the issues they may be facing.
We cannot. We cannot expect anything of LDCs until we take action at home. After all, it was our industrialization which placed us in this debacle in the first place. Now, the industrialization of the rest of the world in combination with our high consumption levels pushes us further toward the edge.
I respectfully disagree with Alice’s point that carbon tax is not the answer at home to curtail our consumption. Higher prices will decrease the consumer and producer demand for carbon. On the other hand, there need to be price levels on a three-tier model – with the least consumers paying the least amount of tax (something like our income tax tier of low-, middle- and high-incomes.) Yes, perhaps the GDP growth paper of Suzuki’s does not effectively take social costs into account, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what, we need to decrease our consumption. An incentive to decrease our consumption is a higher carbon tax.
Furthermore, I also believe that government revenues from this carbon tax should not be returned back to the public as it is currently, but it should be reinvested by the government into social problems, such as increasing bus services as people will likely be taking the bus more as opposed to driving because of higher prices. This will also curtail the social costs as the carbon tax revenues are returned into social benefit projects.
December 4, 2009 at 8:17 am |
I agree with Iran and Kyla that education in the issue of climate change is crucial. However, I don’t think we need to be too down on the education system. I think, comparatively speaking, education on the issue has improved over the years. Just yesterday my brother is working on a project on how to be environmentally friendly and he’s only in fourth grade. I remember when I was in grade four, we never talked about environment degradation, climate change, gas emissions, etc. So, I think it is getting better. Although, we still have a long way to go, of course.
This may be a gross generalization and it is completely on my own thoughts: I think most Canadians, to some extent, do realize that gas emissions (from cars, etc.), power generators – power plants, etc., not recycling, and others contribute to climate change and environmental degradation. I agree with Kyla that many just don’t see the consequences of climate change as devastating because many see only in short term, not long term. I think for many, it is hard to sacrifice own living habits and convenience for the benefits of the future generations. I wouldn’t say that I, myself, would not fall under this category sometimes. Even though I am aware of the issues, I would often choose to drive my car rather than public transit just because it is more convenient and more comfortable. If everyone, on a nation-wide or even global scale, does this… then I can see why there are no drastic advancements in actions towards the issue of climate change.
I think in order to bring about actions to reduce detrimental effects to climate change, we must be able to show everyone how it can affect them personally and why they should invest their time, money, energy, and sacrifice certain things.
December 4, 2009 at 10:02 am |
While I am not a psychology student by any means, I came across something very interesting and applicable to the topic of climate change.
It’s called the Maslow Hierarchy of needs-
(quote from wiki) “It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly those related to identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level.”
It is interesting too that this idea of hierarchy of needs is the foundation of a lot of marketing and market theory.
My point is this: where does climate change in our hierarchy of needs? If in the short run our physiological needs are not being affected by climate change and the environment is not affecting our personal sense of safety- how do we create the need to act to remedy the situation?
I think looking at the issue from a personal level is just as crucial as examining is from a macro-government policy level. The truth is we really do need to focus on how to “market” climate change. Many celebrities may be going on tv and dumbing down climate change or applying a double standard (as Alice mentioned), but to today’s youth, many of whom, view the media as much more influential than science- this may be a place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
December 4, 2009 at 10:44 am |
I remember we did touch on this a little bit in class, but I was just wondering:
With regards to Canada, is it because of the US’ influence, that’s why Harper has been so unresponsive to climate change policies, Copenhagen, etc.? If so, to what extent does the US opinion influence Canada?
I found an interesting news article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/27/f-vp-newman.html
*date November 27, 2009*
“So when U.S. President Barack Obama said he would “drop in” on the climate change summit, Harper knew that he as well had to pack his bags for Denmark.”
“In fact when you come right down to it, whatever the United States wants to do is part of the Canadian plan.”
“Now, with Obama ready to adopt greenhouse gas standards, the Harper government understands that Canada will have to do the same.”
What the article suggests is that the US determines Canada’s environment policies. I’m not too familiar with the topic, but some of my professors have also mentioned about this.
Of course, there are some essential reasons why Canada would follow suit on US’ policies, but I feel that our sovereignty is lost when we do so.
And this is not just limited to environment policies, but with GMO foods and other issues as well.
What do you guys think about this?
December 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
One more even nastier question has been tingling in the back of my mind for awhile now, which comes from this experience:
- Given that aid is just a tiny slice in the development pie (as our presenter for the econ lecture drove home), who are we as the ‘NGO crowd’ to attack those so commonly vilified multinational corporations when they have arguably contributed more to development in the global south then us?
I look forward to your rebuttals
December 4, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Well that seems to say that all development is good development, which I don’t believe to be true, and if i have ANY read into your character at all (I admit that I’m usually pretty dense), I know you don’t believe is true either. Sure, they’ve contributed to development. A whole lot. The darling multinational corporation that is the love child of western democracy and liberal capitalism has done more than it’s part to create a host of other frightening problems as well. Before we even begin to talk about their impact on the environment, multinational corporations have created some really awful dependency issues that have led to a ‘race to the bottom’ (ignore the cliche) with regards to sweatshop wages, etc. Human rights abuses are entirely too common within the realm of these corporations operating abroad. Developing countries are desperate for any development they can get, and so they will create serious tax incentives and negotiate even lower employee wages in order to attract investment in their countries. This is a really messed up problem with no clear solution, because the governments of these countries don’t want righteous NGOs and human rights organizations to intervene and prevent this MNCs to build factories etc. in their countries. But how do we in the allegedly Liberal and Moral Western World then force, or ever-so-gently coerce, MNCs to practice ‘ethical development’? Can we? This makes me think about whether or not democracies can begin to respond to climate change, as you mentioned earlier. I think maybe you were right.
In any case, here’s a short and ghettoized video clip about the Texaco issue in Ecuador. There’s a full movie about this and it’s awesome and terrifying, but I think this ties the issue of southern development and environmental impact together nicely.
December 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
arrrgh! giving that comment context (STUPID INTERNET JUST DELETED MY 500 WORD POST [except for that last bit]!)
You are now getting a way shorter version:
So last week I organized this event: http://www.rethinkforeignpolicy.ca/ [africa case study].
As you can see, the goal of the event was to talk about Africa as a collection of thriving societies and economies, a place that Canada should build a reciprocal relationship with – for ‘africa’s’ sake and ours.
I left the event seething. It was a constant uphill battle to get people [mostly NGO types, though of various ages, genders and birthplaces] to wrap their heads around the ideas that we were presenting, essentially: Africa doesn’t = aid. As I said to my roomate, “half of these people seemed to determined to make Africa into the communist hippy haven, where peasant farmers sing Kum-Bah-Ya around a fire and then go sleep in huts built by CIDA aid, that they know they will never have in our decidedly ‘developed’ and capitalistic society.”
So, I was mad and put it a bit harshly, but I think that ‘green’ – development initiatives have a real ethical crux that needs to be addressed.
Fact is, GDP growth = development (Go find the literature. There is A LOT of it). GDP growth = industrialization.
Industrialization =
1. Build a lot of polluting factories where workers get treated like dirt (sweatshops)
2. As people are paid to work at these sweatshops, they get enough money to send their kids to school
3. Through time and several generations, these kids grow up to be totally critical of the system (as their education affords them increasing skills and critical awareness)
4. These kids are now to skilled and critical to work at miserable jobs where they’re treated like dirt
5. Because society has a larger skill pool, there are more jobs that these kids will accept
6. Years later, you get the ‘developed’ block of countries. Though far from perfect, there is some improvement (free speech, equal access to primary/secondary education, a decent amount of livelihood opportunities etc.)
Its not pretty, it pollutes and people get hurt along the way. Yet it is the ONLY ‘wheel’ for development that has been invented. America/ Europe did it. China, Asia, India and Latin America are following suit. Yet I am constantly overwhelmed by the folks who have convinced themselves that Africa is somehow different from the rest of the world (neo-imperialism? racism? just saying…). It seems taboo to talk about doing business with Africa – in fact, one participant accused me (no lie) of demonizing aid.
Obviously you apply lessons where they’ve been learned (i.e you can pay your employees a decent wage/ have decent working conditions without going bankrupt and therefore it is not acceptable to do otherwise). Yet when it comes to the ‘Canadian’ relationship with Africa (characterized mostly by aid I would argue) and the ‘Chinese’ relationship with Africa (bring in the road pavers and electric lines), I am more and more convinced of the efficacy of the ‘China’ model.
To bring my harsh comment into perspective, who benefits from aid? Is it the receiving society as they develop through our generosity? Or does it just make us feel good about ourselves. Bill Easterly, bless his heart, delivers: http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/“the-statistical-evidence-from-this-study-therefore-suggests-that-as-far-as-happiness-is-concerned-it-is-better-to-give-than-to-receive-aid-”/
The even more uncomfortable questions that come to mind when thinking about this
-Do NGOs harm more then help by protesting against MNCs? Given increased GDP = growth and that MNCs are the only ones investing, who has done more to develop Africa?
-Have we found a ‘green development’ path? I don’t think so. Is it acceptable to encourage Africa to find a green way (which means waiting and slower progress. This involves LOTS of people dying from ludicrous things like cholera, that can be fixed with clean water, sugar and salt) or is it more ethical to bring in the pavers, train tracks and sweatshops because history shows that in every other continent on the world this brings the fastest path to development?
I am more and more convinced that cutting emissions is exclusively on those of us who put the bulk of them there and that in the meantime, build Africa build – and do it with whomever will help you out.
Thus begins my descent into realism, some please rebut and stop me!
December 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
In regards to Anna’s comment, I think that the US’s actions play an IMMESNE role in our decision-making on this issue. While public opinion may desire change, the implications of any great deviations from US policy on this issue could be very harmful to our economy, given the current free trade system. There are obvious worries about our industries becoming uncompetitive if they are forced to comply with certain standards, practices, etc. that the US does not agree to, or if we aim for significantly higher cuts in carbon emissions than our neighbor.
The US is our largest trading partner – US/Canada trade amounted to $710 billion in 2009 – that’s 1.9-2.2 billion crossing the border DAILY. The US received 76% of our exports, accounted for 57% of investment in Canada, and wait for it – accountable for 26% of our GDP.
Not only is there a worry our exports will become uncompetitive with higher relative cuts, investment could also be severely effected, impacting future growth/competitve industries. In addition, the government also sees an opportunity to gain a trade advantage by cutting less emissions than the US (which we are notorious for doing) – ethical? Ridiculous.
I think the time-inconsistency problem is very relevant to this debate – making short term decisions now for political reasons, rather than choosing the option that produces the greatest long term benefit. My poli sci TA is doing her masters on climate change and politics, and gave a really interesting presentation on future security problems caused by climate change. I didn’t get the figure down, but she presented a cost-benefit analysis of policy adoption/mitigation versus continuing on current path – the figures were enormous.
Sidenote – Here is also the link to the website I mentioned in class, where you can check MPs voting records on all bills. A great resource!
http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/
December 4, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
So I decided to head over to the Provincial government website to see what they had to say about the Carbon Tax, what with the serious backlash against the Liberal government’s platform that occurred after they introduced this. They had a cute little FACT vs MYTH section that was not entirely convincing, but also made some good points. Here’s a few of them that I think warrant some analysis.
Myth:
The carbon tax will have virtually no impact on reducing B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Fact:
British Columbia’s carbon tax is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the world. The fossil fuels included in the tax base account for about 70 per cent of British Columbia’s current GHG emissions. At current rates the carbon tax itself will initially have a small impact on emissions. However, this was intentional. The tax rates were deliberately set low to begin with and scheduled to rise slowly over time to send the correct price signal while giving consumers and businesses time to reduce their fossil fuel use. It is important to look at the whole range of initiatives government is introducing to meet its targets rather than just the tax.
Okay. Sure. That’s a good idea. However, there is always the chance that people will, yknow, forget about the tax and just absorb the costs, as they seem to be doing now. Incomes generally rise over time, and people will probably notice the tax less and less. They will reduce costs in one area of their lives in order to compensate for the rising cost in another… Or else they’ll get angry and point to the fact that its impact to date has so far been very minimal. I see a potential problem here.
Here’s another:
Myth:
The carbon tax will not have any effect on people’s behaviour.
Fact:
The tax is based on the assumption that consumers respond to price signals. The purpose of the tax is to send a price signal to reduce the use of fossil fuels and thereby emissions. Several studies show that consumers generally respond to higher gasoline prices by reducing consumption either by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles or by driving less.
Based on new car sales data for British Columbia since 2001, it is evident that the increase in gasoline prices has caused many consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The market share of subcompact and compact passenger car sales has increased steadily from 26 per cent in 2001 to 31 percent in 2006.
Is everybody ready to buy a new car? Even after factoring in the recession? Hey, fuel costs are rising! My costs are more expensive. I should go out and buy a $30,000 fuel efficient car! Is that reeeeallly the normal thought process? It would be nice, assuming people had a ton of spare cash, awesome credit, and no concerns about future finances. Hybrid cars, smart cars, etc. are expensive! How many smart cars do you honestly see a day? The last time I checked, the highest selling fuel efficient car was the Toyota Prius, the cost of which ranges between $22-27,000. Perhaps the reason that sale percentage of fuel efficient vehicles has risen is because the actual percentage of fuel efficient cars available has also risen!
I have also heard many rumors about the manufacturing of the batteries for fuel-efficient cars emitting even more greenhouse gas emissions than the overall lifespan of a regular car. This could of course be propaganda. Can anyone confirm/refute these rumors??
December 4, 2009 at 11:26 pm |
Climate change is a topic that spans borders and oceans. It is a topic that we must work internationally on to combat. However, the question becomes who and how much should be committed to the issue of global warming and at what cost does it come at? For those in developing countries, who are struggling each day at the bare minimum to provide food, shelter, and proper hygiene and sanitation for their family and community, is it right or just for someone from the developed world to demand that they adopt alternative ways to cook their food (eg. over a wood/coal stove)? Is it fair for us to ask people in Kenya to begin using solar panels to heat their water to decrease air pollution? Is ethical of us to ask those in Vietnam to stop riding hondas and purchase hybrid-hondas or ride the bus to decrease air pollution when the latter two options are unaffordable? I view the world at an individual-country basis. In Canada, where survival (eg. food, shelter, water, hygiene) is easily attainable, other issues like climate change focused in greater detail. In countries like Vietnam, where individuals are trying to climb out of poverty, issues like climate change are recognized as important, but are not focused on because they are not a priority. Should we be blaming developing countries for not focusing more heavily on issues likes climate change? In my opinion, no. We should consider the priorities of each country and make sure that tackling change is a part of their priorities/action plan. As long as they are conscious and are willing to eventually take initiative on the issue, I am okay with their plan on focusing on reducing issues like poverty and malnturition as the health and education of a society is most important.
December 4, 2009 at 11:34 pm |
I’m not entirely sure about this myself, but what do you guys think of the possibility of the WTO contributing to climate change? This may sound strange, as the WTO is notorious for being anti-environment, pro-killing-turtles, but a lot of these arguments are misleading. there has been some discussion in the academic world of the “greening of the WTO”. The benefit of using the WTO as opposed to any other international organization is that it has a binding enforcement mechanism – it uses sanctions. If a number of influential countries set environmental standards, they can say that all imported products must conform to those standards, thus continuously raising the bar for domestic environmental standards in each country. They can favor the adoption of clean technologies in countries, and explicitly authorize “eco-labelling” – labeling the carbon cost of every product so that consumers can decide whether they want to purchase the slightly cheaper, environmentally awful product or the fair trade, carbon neutral one. They can root out potentially harmful domestic subsidies, such as subsidies to domestic fishing industries that worsen the depletion of fishery stocks. In essence, the goals of the WTO would be to improve trade relations with a green lens. Might be a bit idealistic, but it is interesting nonetheless
December 6, 2009 at 2:12 am |
test – good