Flying the friendly (but taxed) skies

In Canada, it’s common wisdom that declaring support for an environmental tax can be political suicide. Stephane Dion’s support of a carbon tax certainly didn’t help him hold onto the leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and BC’s carbon tax originally raised the expected howls of opposition (and its recent increase in tandem with the provincial HST could raise them again). But in a country with one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emission rates in the world, it seems likely that Canadians will eventually see something along the lines of a price on carbon. Across the Atlantic, it’s already becoming a reality.

Germany, along with other struggling European economies, recently passed a slate of austerity measures to bring deficits down. In this case, it included an eco-tax on air travel designed to bring up to a billion Euros in revenue.

Following on the heels of the UK’s own air travel duties, instituted in 2007, the German tax is stirring controversy as opponents accuse the government of using environmental concerns as an excuse to draw more tax revenue. As the Tree Hugger article linked above notes, other European countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have already dropped taxes on air travel in response to this kind of opposition, which is hardly surprising — with the world still concerned about recession, environmental concerns are usually trumped. A Canwest poll in March, for example, found that 36 per cent of Canadians listed the economy as their primary concern, versus 17 per cent for the environment.

Money talks, which is why Alberta requires companies who exceed their carbon intensity targets to pay $15 per tonne of CO2 emissions into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which recently paid out a total of $28.1 million to 30 Alberta companies. We all incur an environmental cost with emissions, and if Germany is any indication, we might also eventually incur a financial one to boot.

Via Tree Hugger

“Naked as newts” on climate change

It all comes down to dollars and cents. If consumers and policymakers are forced to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, the decision seems quite easy.

Which is why the hot topic of climate change is getting somewhat of a cold shoulder on the political front.

At least that’s what Toronto Globe and Mail columnist and co-author of “Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge”, Jeffrey Simpson sees on the horizon for Canada. He expects climate change to be “somewhat” relegated to the back burner by the re-elected Conservative minority, forced there by world oil price trends and the ongoing international market meltdown.

Speaking to the ninth Canadian Hydropower Association annual forum, Simpson said there is a rational case for using carbon tax in concert with cap-and-trade initiatives, tougher emissions standards and selective subsidies in the fight against global warming.

He lauded British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax and federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s recent “green shift” election campaign. Simpson suggested the gradual introduction of a carbon tax as proposed by Dion could change consumer buying patterns.

Case and point. In recent months when oil prices soared, sales of sport utility vehicles “tanked” while sales of hybrids and other fuel-efficient alternatives increased commensurately. “So the market, in effect, did its job.” A promising sign that we can mend our bigfoot ways. But according to Simpson, consumer change is generally a slow and sometimes grudging process.

And when economic times are tough, environmental concerns “tend to subside” making climate change policy less of a priority.

Canadians were well ahead of their politicians on the climate change issue. From 2006 to 2008, successive polls indicated an overwhelming call for action on global warming. “We led the world in plans,” Simpson said, drawing a chuckle as he faulted governments for being “naked as newts to the rest of the world” in terms of turning plans into action.

Even as Canadians pressed for change, Not-In-My-Back-Yard remained the watchword. Consumers are in favour of more wind and solar power, but keep the turbine and panel arrays away from my little patch of green. Clean hydroelectric power is great, but don’t flood any areas near me.

“Canadians are still open to ideas about how to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re very wary about how it should be done – and at what cost.” Simpson added that Canadians are at the early stages of a revolution away from fossil-fuel dependence to a different energy mix as they become increasingly aware of the liabilities and global environmental degradation.

Simpson lamented the lack of a national energy policy, including a federally-financed national power grid, as the provinces go their own way and the federal government keeps its grip on trade and economic issues. That being said, there was no mention of hydroelectricity in the re-elected Conservatives’ campaign plan.

Overall, Canadians remain wedded to the easy options, according to Simpson: government subsidies, energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances. Conversely, higher prices for energy remain as unpopular today as when the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark was defeated on the “short-term pain for long-term gain” concept of an 18-cent increase in gasoline excise taxes.

For now, the market has spoken.

Making the voluntary mandatory

On their surface, voluntary carbon reductions may seem like easy dodges. After all, while bodies like the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Western Climate Initiative have set laudable goals of their own (six per cent below 1998 – 2001 levels by 2010 for the CCX and 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 for the WCI), all it takes to avoid abiding by their rules is, well, refusing to abide by their rules. Or does it?

As the Globe and Mail revealed last week, the WCI has found a way to extend its reach beyond its already considerable member base — seven American states and three Canadian provinces (B.C., Manitoba and Quebec), along with nine “observers” to touch some folks who, up to now, not been interested in being part of the gang.

By placing a premium on Alberta’s “dirty” coal power, the WCI would essentially be placing Alberta’s power under the initiative’s cap-and-trade approach without Alberta’s explicitly joining the initiative. And all this comes after the provinces collectively failed last year to create a binding agreement between them on carbon trading.

The WCI’s move is no idle threat, given that B.C. is a net importer of power from the largely coal-fired Alberta grid. So, while the measure will have the effect of penalizing Alberta for continuing to produce about 5,840 mega watts of coal power a year, it will also have a direct effect on the cost of B.C.’s power. It’s an added premium that bears a comparison with the increased costs of B.C.’s carbon tax.

The first in the country, the carbon tax’s express purpose is to make consumers pay the full price for the energy they use. And given the WCI’s interest in increasing the cost of Alberta’s power, it seems clear that keeping those costs contained won’t be as simple as avoiding voluntary standards (a lesson the Canadian government has already started to learn).

Feeling gassy?

You’ve heard this: We are all hothouse tomatoes, trapped under invisible, gaseous glass and if we don’t stay green we’re going to go overripe faster than you can say ketchup. What’s more, you’re probably aware that the invisible gases fuelling our environmental woes are being tackled with emissions standards, cap-and-trade carbon credits and carbon taxes.

So, since you know all of that, a few simple questions: Do you really know what a greenhouse gas is?

Can you name one? Two? Six? Do you know when and where you produce them?

Well, if you can’t, have no fear; Flow is here to give you the basic whats and wheres of greenhouse gases. After all, they’re as tricky as substances can be. For one, they’re all invisible.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the four primary greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone (144KB PDF), with each of them assigned a numeric “Global Warming Potential” (GWT) value. The remaining three, all man-made, are sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

Below are a few examples of where your actions may have produced some of these tomato-shriveling gases.

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Where: Your soda
Car exhaust, feedlots, industrial pollution, fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas for a reason—it’s in almost everything we burn, and it’s what we exhale. It’s so common, and because it’s impractical to suggest we all stop breathing, for now let’s concentrate on the C02 that makes those little fizzing bubbles in our Mountain Dew.

Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Where: Your steak
Before your sirloin was medium-rare, it was so rare that it walked, mooed and produced nitrogen-rich manure. Vegetarians aren’t off the hook either, especially if the plants they eat were grown with nitrous fertilizers. If there’s a plus side to animal waste, though, it’s that it doesn’t need to be wasted.

Methane (CH4)
Where: Your trash
Along with CO2, methane is one of the two gases found in “landfill gas”, which smells as appetizing as it sounds. But new energy techniques are trapping this noxious gas and turning it into viable fuel that, when burned, leaves only CO2.

Ozone (O3)
Where: Your car
In fairness to your car, ozone pollution isn’t all its fault. But when its exhaust comes in contact with so-called “volatile organic compounds” in the air, ground-level ozone is created. And while Canadians may be committed to stopping the depletion of the ozone layer, those added ozone gases aren’t helping.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Where: Your magic
As far as direct contributions, you’re probably safe here. Short of the electrical industry, which uses the gas to insulate high voltage circuit breakers, the closest you’re likely to come to releasing sulfur hexafluoride is when you decide to wow your friends with your incredibly low voice and magical powers. But while you might not be a burgeoning magician, you certainly do use the magic of electricity every day.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Where: Your cold air
What would summer be without the comforting cold of an air conditioner? Well, for starters, it would see a lot fewer HFCs, which are used in air conditioning units. And before you rush off for your backup popsicle, just remember that your freezer is chock full of HFCs too.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Where: Your foil
If you’re a fencer and read “foil” with horror, relax: This is the kind of foil that wraps up leftovers, not competitions. PFCs are released during the process of turning alumina into aluminum, a metal you’ve used if you’ve ever had brisket left over to wrap up or used virtually any other modern metal convenience.

Seven greenhouse gases and seven familiar ways we generate them in our daily lives. Their effects are varied, but in addition to their eponymous greenhouse effect, they’re also known to increase the acidity of our oceans. And since the gases clearly aren’t just generated in the limited fields of soda, magic or food wrappings, it’s important to understand exactly how and where they are produced, and how the industries responsible for generating greenhouse gases are dealing with them.

It’s always better to understand the ways your energy use affects the world you live, because even if you’re behind on your reading there’s always time to “ketchup”.

What’s in a name?

When it comes to the Liberals’ planned carbon tax, the name game has been played since day one. From rejected gas pump ads calling leader Stéphane Dion’s still-unannounced plan a “tax trick” to the tried-and-true “crazy” label, the name-calling on this plan has made the whole affair sound, well, exactly like what we’ve come to expect from rabid politicos.

But when Dion announced his party’s “Green Shift” carbon tax plan on June 19, the addition of the “Green Shift” name also produced an expected stumbling point of its own — a potential lawsuit.

Because the Green Shift name is already being used by an established Toronto environmental consulting and supply company, The Liberal party is facing the possibility of being sued for trademark infringement. And while it’s not the first time the Liberals have had to face a potential suit under Dion’s watch, it is a problematic point of contention when the plan is already proving to be contentious on its own merits.

For an idea of the name game’s acrimony, the CBC quotes Conservative cabinet minister Jason Kenney as inferring Dion’s name choice demonstrated his incompetence. It’s a familiar jab, but it might also be the pot calling the kettle black. Or at least a darker shade of green.

With respect to the Conservatives, it’s worth noting that, less than a year ago, the party was in an almost identical spot when they tried using the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change, despite the ecoTrust brand being held by an existing B.C. firm.

So while Dion will have to deal with the fallout of launching a carbon tax amid rising fuel prices, it’s worth remembering that the name game can still play both ways.

Geo-engineering

With climatologists like Dr. James Hansen continuing to prognosticate on increasing global temperatures, and resistance to emission-reducing strategies like carbon taxes still an issue, consumers can be forgiven for wondering if there’s anything to be done to keep Earth from succumbing to an apocalyptic climate disaster.

Certainly, there’s no shortage of ways to change fuel consumption through taxes, cap-and-trade systems for carbon credits, or even physically removing cars from roadways. They’re all being tried in a variety of ways by countries around the world, but if predictions like Hansen’s are any indication, we might also need to begin considering more drastic measures.

As the Los Angeles Times reported this week, “geo-engineering” is an umbrella term for some of the most direct means of combating global warming. Rather than trying to reduce existing emissions, though this would still remain a part of any climate change strategy, geo-engineering would essentially attempt to rewire environmental conditions.

For example, where reducing emissions would theoretically reduce the amount of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, American scientist Roger Angel has proposed a “sunshade” system that would deflect some of the sun’s light away from the Earth using trillion of specialized mirrors. Similarly, rather than only reducing the amount of CO2 sent into the atmosphere, Dr. Wallace Broecker has proposed that industrialized nations build atmospheric “scrubbers” to extract CO2 from the air.

Researched by institutions like The National Academy of Sciences, other geo-engineering techniques include cloud seeding, the manipulation of clouds and their attendant precipitation; stratosphere sulphur-spraying, which would mimic the cooling effect of a large eruption, like Mt. Pinatubo in The Philippines; and fertilizing large masses of phytoplankton, microscopic organisms who use CO2 in the process of photosynthesis.

Each of these ideas comes with its own potential hazards, not to mention unforeseen consequences. Huge “blooms” of phytoplankton could create their own environmental tolls, and any climate-related change is a tricky move at best, given that weather’s always been a touchy beast.

All geo-engineering techniques are, by definition, rebalancing the Earth’s ecosystem, albeit with the intention of making the Earth more livable. Whether they’ll move from the theoretical to the practical, however, remains to be seen.

Canada’s carbon tax could come in either red or Green

Sufferers of colour blindness can be excused for a long, hard blink at a pair of proposals announced this week. Not only are they both ostensibly revenue-neutral carbon taxes designed to add a tangible cost to greenhouse gas emissions, but one is red and the other is Green.

While Liberal leader Stephane Dion made his announcement of the Liberal’s carbon tax plan, The Green Party unveiled its own version two days beforehand. Both, interestingly, are variants of the title “Green Shift” (Liberal: “The Green Shift,” Green: “Green Tax Shift”). (Given the Conservative offensive against the still-nascent plan, is it any wonder the Liberals were less inclined to include the term “tax”?

Now, for those of you with the ability to distinguish between red and green claims: can you tell the difference?

Red (1 MB PDF)

• Revenue-neutral
• $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions
• $15 billion in revenue
• Rural Canadians receive an annual “Green Rural Credit” of $150
• No increase on the price in fuel (in the first year)
• Lowering the lowest tax bracket’s taxation from 15 per cent to 13.5 per cent

Green

• Revenue-neutral
• $50 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions
• $40 billion in revenue
• Lower income Canadians receive “carbon tax rebates” modeled after GST rebates
• Fuel prices will increase
• Lowering the lowest tax brackets’ taxation from 15.5 per cent to 15 per cent (oddly, the Canadian Revenue Agency already posts the bracket’s rate at 15 per cent)