Primary public view on the climate plan: Don't screw up the economy

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun
February 07, 2008

When a B.C. Liberal-dominated committee toured the province seeking feedback on the "climate action plan," the first thing it heard was that the government should not do anything to screw up the economy.

"A clear and unsolicited message the committee heard was that measures to reduce greenhouse gases must neither adversely affect the B.C.'s strong economic position nor increase the province's debt-to-GDP ratio," the committee reported.

"This message was reiterated time and time again."

A second finding was that government should be careful about loading on the carbon taxes.

Such taxes should be a "second choice," after government exhausts the possibilities for "incentive-based programs," the committee concluded.

Those recommendations were contained in a report from the legislature finance committee, delivered last November.

The panel had toured the province at the behest of Finance Minister Carole Taylor, seeking public views on this year's budget and economic plan. Among other things, she wanted know what the public would support in terms of incentives, disincentives and taxes in the fight against climate change.

The answers, though they've been on the record since the 100-page report was released, take on additional importance with the approach of this year's throne speech (next Tuesday) and budget (Feb. 19.) So it will be instructive to see if the Liberals were guided by the committee's generally cautionary findings, particularly on the taxation issue.

For instance, Taylor says any tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be "revenue neutral."

But in almost the same breath, she claims that the definition is broad enough to allow government to retain the proceeds from any carbon tax, providing the money is spent on a "dedicated purpose."

Not so, according to the legislature committee. It adopted a much narrower definition of revenue neutrality, whereby "increased revenues from a carbon tax would be offset by lowering other taxes, such as income tax."

The committee did receive numerous submissions calling for greenhouse gas emissions to be taxed at a rate of $30 to $50 per tonne, which would translate to seven to 12 cents a litre in the case of gasoline. But it concluded that at least some of those submissions were the result of an orchestrated campaign by "technologically savvy environmental advocacy organizations."

It also took note of concerns about "fairness and equity" in the application of carbon taxes.

"If a carbon tax is applied across the board, there would be a negative impact on particular groups, such as low-income earners, rural British Columbians and those without access to public transportation."

Hence a recommendation that the makers of any new tax should be mindful of the need to cushion those least able to pay it.

"Should the government choose a carbon tax," the committee said, "it should take measures to mitigate the impacts of such a tax on lower- and middle-income families." The report also urged the government to "recognize a clear urban/rural divide with respect to increases in transportation-related taxation."

Over to you Finance Minister Taylor.

None of this should be interpreted as lack of public support for action on climate change.

"The vast majority of British Columbians taking part in this year's budget consultation process want the government to take decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the committee said. But in the main the public preferred incentives rather than punitive action, a view the committee members came to share.

"While the committee is not entirely against introducing new forms of taxation to address climate change, we strongly believe that the government should -- as first priority -- consider incentive-based programs targeting behavioural change in both individuals and businesses."

The report's mainly positive recommendations included calls for everything from "measures to promote environmentally friendly consumer packaging" to "programs to improve the efficiency of B.C.'s trucking fleet."

Another key finding was that people did not know nearly enough about what could and should be done. "As a first step," the committee endorsed "the creation of a website that will provide factual information on the impacts of climate change, information on what steps individuals and business can take to reduce their environmental impact, and serve as repository of the myriad of programs and ideas available to individuals and business willing to change their behaviour."

In short, before the government plunges too deeply into this crusade, it needs to tell British Columbians a lot more about what it is doing, could be doing and why.

Worth noting, too, that all these findings were unanimous, endorsed by the six B.C. Liberals on the committee as well as the four members of the Opposition.

vpalmer@direct.ca