I'm conflicted when it comes to a carbon tax. On one side, it feels like the right thing to do, like eating your oatmeal every morning. On the other side, it feels hollow, like cutting back on the chocolate chips you add to your porridge by only half a chip.
To actually make a difference, a carbon tax must be prohibitively high. It's been suggested that Canada would require a tax of $200/tonne of carbon to meet our climate change goals by 2030. That small first step is four times what the government plans to implement by 2022. B.C., our green provincial pioneer of carbon tax hasn't increased its rate of $30/t since 2012, and is far short of meeting its own emissions targets for 2020.
Governments understand the dangers of driving up energy costs. One has only to look to Ontario to see the political impacts of transitioning to cleaner energy sources and higher utility bills – they're about to elect Rob Ford's brother as premier. By 2019, Conservative premiers in Alberta and Ontario may be in office, not to mention a potential Conservative prime minister. All of them vow to scrap the carbon tax.
It doesn't take much to foster a political backlash. In the U.S., a dictator wannabe was elected largely because of the economic malaise in their manufacturing industry. He not only plans to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change but hopes to resurrect the coal industry. The economy still trumps the environment (pardon the pun).
I believe a carbon tax is needed, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Canada needs a modest tax to build our reputation as a clean energy producer, much like Alberta invoked a carbon tax to get a pipeline. It's like riding your bike after your commute to work – you're not saving the world, but you look and feel better.
If every country meets its Paris Agreement goals by 2030, the world's average temperature increase will be slowed by 0.2 degrees Celsius. We can argue about the significance of 0.2 degrees, but it's irrelevant if the world's largest emitters aren't doing their part. The U.S., which accounts for nearly one fifth of emissions, has already announced its withdrawal. China, now the biggest emitter in the world, saw a 3.5% increase in emissions in 2017 and will likely reach peak emissions by 2030. India, the third largest emitter, may reach peak emissions by 2040. These global giants will determine our climate change fate and it's not looking good.
More and more, it looks like we will require a technological breakthrough. Even the developers of the Paris Agreement admitted as such. In addition to a drastic reduction in emissions after 2030, the world will require new technologies to inject carbon dioxide back into the earth to keep global temperatures from rising over 1.5 degrees Celsius. We've already caused a 1-degree increase in temperatures and will see a 2-degree increase (what's been called the tipping point) even if the world economy grinds to a halt today. Even the U.N. Energy Programme admits that a 3- to 4-degree increase is more than likely by 2100, unless the technology saves us.
Carbon capture and storage technology is still in its infancy. Although shown to work on a small scale, it's largely unproven and expensive. While other technologies may be more feasible, the transition to solar, wind and hydro could take decades. And these technologies can't reverse the atmospheric damage once it's done.
This isn't to say that new advancements won't arise. Ten years ago we thought we would run out of cheap oil, then new technologies made the U.S., ironically, into a resurgent energy power. The same could happen with environmental technologies, but it's an awful lot to bank on.
In the meantime, pay your modest carbon tax (if you don't have one yet, you will soon).
It might make you feel a little better.
No comments:
Post a Comment