Albertans Support Climate Action
(Photo: Chris Yakimov/flickr/cc)
Oct 08, 2015
Congratulations to the Pembina Institute on a poll they conducted with EKOS Research, assessing support for climate action among Albertans. The results are fascinating and hopeful. You can find the full results here, and a good Postmedia summary here.
But a few highlights:
- A large majority of respondents (70 percent) support investing in renewable energy sources to reduce the province's reliance on coal-fired electricity.
- A majority (56 percent) of Albertans think the province has an obligation to cut emissions to address climate change, while only 26 percent disagree.
- 53 percent of those polled said they support stronger climate change policies, even if they mean higher costs for oil sand producers.
More interesting still: 50 per cent of those polled supported an economy-wide carbon tax (such as exists in B.C.) as opposed to an Alberta-style levy that applies only to greenhouse-gas producing industries; while 38 per cent are opposed to such a tax.
But perhaps most interesting is this: support for an economy-wide carbon tax rises to 72 per cent when the revenue raised is directed towards infrastructure and community projects to reduce carbon emissions, and rises to 60 per cent when the money raised is used to protect low-income households from increased energy prices. In contrast, using the money raised to lower personal income taxes does nothing to increase support for a carbon tax.
These latter findings correspond with what we at CCPA have said for years. Namely, making carbon taxes "revenue-neutral" (plowing all the money raised into various tax cuts, as B.C. does) makes no sense. It's a poor use of resources, and a lost opportunity to take climate action and restore tax fairness -- and the public gets it!
You can see Marc Lee's critique of revenue neutrality here.
These findings also offer an important lesson for the next federal government and point to some strengths and weaknesses of the NDP versus Green Party approaches to carbon pricing.
The NDP's "cap-and-trade" plan would set specific emission limits (a cap) for industrial emitters, and then would make industry pay for the GHGs they produce. The money raised would not be used to lower taxes, but rather, would go to the provinces to be spent on climate action investments. So the NDP has wisely chosen to pass on the traditional (and cynical) "revenue-neutral" approach. The Green Party's "fee and dividend" plan would include an economy-wide $30/tonne carbon tax (which the public supports), but then takes all the money raised and gives it back in an equal tax cut to all adults (which Albertans indicate they view as a poor use of the revenues raised).
The Liberals have not proposed a specific carbon-pricing plan, but rather, say they will work with the provinces to establish national emission-reduction targets and "ensure that the provinces and territories have adequate tools to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies."
The Conservatives have rejected carbon pricing outright, stating instead a preference for a regulatory approach. But thus far, as Marc Lee notes in this recent post, the government's success using this method leaves much to be desired. While GHG emissions fell during the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, they have increased yearly since (going up to 2013, the last year for which we have data). And after years of promises, the government has yet to propose a GHG regulatory regime for Canada's oil and gas sector.
Hopefully the next government will move forward with a vigorous economy-wide carbon-pricing plan, tied to legislated GHG emission reduction targets, and will use revenues raised to help get the job done. If the public in Alberta is ready, surely the rest of Canada is too.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Seth Klein
Seth Klein is the team lead and director of strategy with the Climate Emergency Unit. Prior to that, he served for 22 years as the founding director of the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), Canada’s foremost social justice think tank. He is now a freelance policy consultant, speaker, researcher and writer, and author of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. Seth is an adjunct professor with Simon Fraser University’s urban studies program and remains a research associate with the CCPA’s B.C. office.
albertacanadacarbon emissionscarbon taxclimate changeclimate emergencycoalrenewable energyclimate action
Congratulations to the Pembina Institute on a poll they conducted with EKOS Research, assessing support for climate action among Albertans. The results are fascinating and hopeful. You can find the full results here, and a good Postmedia summary here.
But a few highlights:
- A large majority of respondents (70 percent) support investing in renewable energy sources to reduce the province's reliance on coal-fired electricity.
- A majority (56 percent) of Albertans think the province has an obligation to cut emissions to address climate change, while only 26 percent disagree.
- 53 percent of those polled said they support stronger climate change policies, even if they mean higher costs for oil sand producers.
More interesting still: 50 per cent of those polled supported an economy-wide carbon tax (such as exists in B.C.) as opposed to an Alberta-style levy that applies only to greenhouse-gas producing industries; while 38 per cent are opposed to such a tax.
But perhaps most interesting is this: support for an economy-wide carbon tax rises to 72 per cent when the revenue raised is directed towards infrastructure and community projects to reduce carbon emissions, and rises to 60 per cent when the money raised is used to protect low-income households from increased energy prices. In contrast, using the money raised to lower personal income taxes does nothing to increase support for a carbon tax.
These latter findings correspond with what we at CCPA have said for years. Namely, making carbon taxes "revenue-neutral" (plowing all the money raised into various tax cuts, as B.C. does) makes no sense. It's a poor use of resources, and a lost opportunity to take climate action and restore tax fairness -- and the public gets it!
You can see Marc Lee's critique of revenue neutrality here.
These findings also offer an important lesson for the next federal government and point to some strengths and weaknesses of the NDP versus Green Party approaches to carbon pricing.
The NDP's "cap-and-trade" plan would set specific emission limits (a cap) for industrial emitters, and then would make industry pay for the GHGs they produce. The money raised would not be used to lower taxes, but rather, would go to the provinces to be spent on climate action investments. So the NDP has wisely chosen to pass on the traditional (and cynical) "revenue-neutral" approach. The Green Party's "fee and dividend" plan would include an economy-wide $30/tonne carbon tax (which the public supports), but then takes all the money raised and gives it back in an equal tax cut to all adults (which Albertans indicate they view as a poor use of the revenues raised).
The Liberals have not proposed a specific carbon-pricing plan, but rather, say they will work with the provinces to establish national emission-reduction targets and "ensure that the provinces and territories have adequate tools to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies."
The Conservatives have rejected carbon pricing outright, stating instead a preference for a regulatory approach. But thus far, as Marc Lee notes in this recent post, the government's success using this method leaves much to be desired. While GHG emissions fell during the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, they have increased yearly since (going up to 2013, the last year for which we have data). And after years of promises, the government has yet to propose a GHG regulatory regime for Canada's oil and gas sector.
Hopefully the next government will move forward with a vigorous economy-wide carbon-pricing plan, tied to legislated GHG emission reduction targets, and will use revenues raised to help get the job done. If the public in Alberta is ready, surely the rest of Canada is too.
Seth Klein
Seth Klein is the team lead and director of strategy with the Climate Emergency Unit. Prior to that, he served for 22 years as the founding director of the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), Canada’s foremost social justice think tank. He is now a freelance policy consultant, speaker, researcher and writer, and author of A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. Seth is an adjunct professor with Simon Fraser University’s urban studies program and remains a research associate with the CCPA’s B.C. office.
Congratulations to the Pembina Institute on a poll they conducted with EKOS Research, assessing support for climate action among Albertans. The results are fascinating and hopeful. You can find the full results here, and a good Postmedia summary here.
But a few highlights:
- A large majority of respondents (70 percent) support investing in renewable energy sources to reduce the province's reliance on coal-fired electricity.
- A majority (56 percent) of Albertans think the province has an obligation to cut emissions to address climate change, while only 26 percent disagree.
- 53 percent of those polled said they support stronger climate change policies, even if they mean higher costs for oil sand producers.
More interesting still: 50 per cent of those polled supported an economy-wide carbon tax (such as exists in B.C.) as opposed to an Alberta-style levy that applies only to greenhouse-gas producing industries; while 38 per cent are opposed to such a tax.
But perhaps most interesting is this: support for an economy-wide carbon tax rises to 72 per cent when the revenue raised is directed towards infrastructure and community projects to reduce carbon emissions, and rises to 60 per cent when the money raised is used to protect low-income households from increased energy prices. In contrast, using the money raised to lower personal income taxes does nothing to increase support for a carbon tax.
These latter findings correspond with what we at CCPA have said for years. Namely, making carbon taxes "revenue-neutral" (plowing all the money raised into various tax cuts, as B.C. does) makes no sense. It's a poor use of resources, and a lost opportunity to take climate action and restore tax fairness -- and the public gets it!
You can see Marc Lee's critique of revenue neutrality here.
These findings also offer an important lesson for the next federal government and point to some strengths and weaknesses of the NDP versus Green Party approaches to carbon pricing.
The NDP's "cap-and-trade" plan would set specific emission limits (a cap) for industrial emitters, and then would make industry pay for the GHGs they produce. The money raised would not be used to lower taxes, but rather, would go to the provinces to be spent on climate action investments. So the NDP has wisely chosen to pass on the traditional (and cynical) "revenue-neutral" approach. The Green Party's "fee and dividend" plan would include an economy-wide $30/tonne carbon tax (which the public supports), but then takes all the money raised and gives it back in an equal tax cut to all adults (which Albertans indicate they view as a poor use of the revenues raised).
The Liberals have not proposed a specific carbon-pricing plan, but rather, say they will work with the provinces to establish national emission-reduction targets and "ensure that the provinces and territories have adequate tools to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies."
The Conservatives have rejected carbon pricing outright, stating instead a preference for a regulatory approach. But thus far, as Marc Lee notes in this recent post, the government's success using this method leaves much to be desired. While GHG emissions fell during the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, they have increased yearly since (going up to 2013, the last year for which we have data). And after years of promises, the government has yet to propose a GHG regulatory regime for Canada's oil and gas sector.
Hopefully the next government will move forward with a vigorous economy-wide carbon-pricing plan, tied to legislated GHG emission reduction targets, and will use revenues raised to help get the job done. If the public in Alberta is ready, surely the rest of Canada is too.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.