SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Albertans Support Climate Action: Lessons for the Next Federal Government
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.
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.