I'm Canadian, so, yes, we have a carbon tax. It's due to increase April 1, 2024, and has also become a political hot potato, with polls predicting the ouster of our current PM, Justin Trudeau. Right now, the carbon pricing plan is set at $65 a tonne. As of April 1, it will be $80 a tonne, and will continue to rise annually by $15 until it reaches $170 a tonne by 2030. Sadly, too many Canadians are carbon tax illiterates, so it's hard to say what the future holds for our collective effort to reduce carbon emissions, thereby helping to reverse climate change.
According to your video, Mexico has an ETS however it should be noted that the system is still in the test phase (and has been for many years) and not fully operational.
I'm in Canada, and think our government has done a really poor job of explaining how the carbon tax is supposed to work, and how much -- or how little -- it's adding to prices of essential goods.
I think they also should have implemented some kind of cap on how much they can push those costs onto us, and how much the company is supposed to have to pay out of their profits. The profiteering of all the major corporations in Canada lately has been completely unacceptable. For me personally the carbon tax is a big benefit, but I don't feel we as individuals should have to get raked over the coals, as much as the companies' profit margins should take a small hit. We're getting gouged left right and center and there's no watchdog that's capable of actually stopping anything. Things are looking bleak honestly...
At this stage climate change is going to add a lot more to prices of essential goods. Olive oil doubled in price because of dry weather, cocoa prices skyrocket due to same thing. Whatever its adding, its still low comparing to what its gonna be without carbon tax.
As a Canadian, that tries to stay informed. The carbon tax hasn't been made clear as to how its helping the climate, if it even is. Even in this video, they said they take money from us and then give us some back. However, those who get it back are low income. Those in the middle income, and just trying to survive like myself. Seem to be hit hard. We pay the tax, don't get anything back and face the struggle to stay afloat, even on multiple incomes in one family. Also, Canada is a very low polluter on the whole. Even if we completely cut out our pollution. It would have nearly no effect on anything. Also, Canada has one of the largest land mass with forests. And what do trees do? Absorb co2 and emit o2. Imo, the Canadian gov needs to show proof on how it's helping the world and not just keep saying 8 out of 10 Canadians are better off. When the reality is that we all are suffering bc of this tax.
Communication aside, what's the point of the carbon tax and provide a rebate? Would it not be just as effective to have a lower rate? The government has to pay to set up a rebate program, more money down the drain
Hey DW! This was a great video. I live in Canada and it was interesting hearing our current solution being shared. Personally and I am not sure how many Canadians would agree with me. I am not the biggest fan of our current method, because it just feels like shuffling money. Its funny how feelings arent fact but they can be powerful. My reason for my feelings about it, is that with my income it is not enough money reimbursed to allow me to afford alternatives options and I still cringe when I go to the pump. Also, I imagine that people on the flip side with a higher disposable income with limited need for the reimbursement, already make enough to afford to transition. Id personally rather see the money reinvested into a more robust transit system or nuclear plants to lower our energy costs.
Thanks for the comment Jeremy, fellow Canadian here. First, as a graduate nuclear engineering student I'm so happy to hear support for nuclear power! Second, I would echo your thoughts and add that putting a price on what you want to disincentivise only makes what you are trying to incentivise cheaper in a relative sense, not absolute. To actually drive adoption of more efficient technologies, they have be more affordable in an absolute sense. One option we have seen is subsidizing heat pumps or EV purchases. While a subsidy technically makes a given technology cheaper in an absolute sense, it's a band-aid for the technology being too expensive. I recently saw a fascinating video by Just Have a Think on UA-cam about "re-conductoring" transmission lines and the amount of energy we could save is impressive! While I agree that carbon cannot be endlessly dumped into our atmosphere, our regulation of the climate to what we believe it should be is in itself "climate change" and arguably unnatural. If most of the communication around this issue is driving existential crises within people - certainly my generation and younger - this drives paralysis and anxiety instead of hope and passion for innovation. I think education is the fundamental issue here because we have so many "holes" in our energy systems which we can work to patch thereby using each watt as efficiently as possible so we don't have to generate more and everyone can still live comfortably!
The carbon tax is too low. The graph that compares the carbon tax between countries does not show the “real” story. The “coverage” of the carbon tax is much more important. If the coverage of the tax is limited it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is high like in Uruguay (approximately 10% of domestic emissions).
this is true in the forest sector as well, at about 30-50 USD/TCO2E. What's crazy is that we shift the blame and the burden to the consumers rather than the mega companies. it's crazy.
@@MrLouisanalane either way cusumers always pay the price companies just add to their business cost and charge us for it. This however may be more fair than other ways.
@@gregmchale5011- It’s hard enough for ordinary consumers to make ends meet these days. Hiking carbon taxes is sheer insanity at this stage. Unless, of course, you want widespread unrest, which is where this is heading. The climate problem is an extremely gradual one, that will start to affect us over a timescale of multiple decades. Current “heat domes” are weather not climate.
Too low?! It’s $1.55 to $2.15 a litre ($5.80-$8.00 gal) in Canada for gas. We all can’t afford electric vehicles. Our utility bills like electric and natural gas is very high. The technology is advancing but we’re being punished because we’re too poor to afford to go green. I can’t afford a $7,000 car let alone a $25,000 car. Or to outfit my house with solar panels when our mortgage rates are sky high. It’s unfair and it’s HURTING us all!! Our mortgage went from $1,500 to over $2,000. So when I hear that the tax is too low it’s infuriating. Rebates don’t cover what the carbon tax did to our economy.
I think that we should focus on making alternatives economically feasible and cheap for lower and working class people to transition into clean and renewable energy.
You speak of "we", but we have limited power to say what should be produced and what should not. What is absent from your phrase is the notion of "power".
Another is stop buying cheap ass products and making cheap ass housing. Making products and houses durable and easy to repair means less junk and no need to buy new stuff always.
This “expert” actually said a Carbon Tax would help a country develop! Making energy more expensive to poorer countries is quite literally how you kill 10s of millions of people. These countries still burn Lignite to survive. We should send revenue from carbon taxes to invest in clean energy (nuclear) in these countries in exchange for their other natural resources like precious metals.
These countries don't have the infrastructure or enough qualified technicians to set up and deal with nuclear energy. And if you told them that in case of radiation from an accident, their livestock would die, and their families would develop strange cancers that their govt would try to cover up (like what has happened with every single accident), they might not be enthusiastic about nuclear energy.
I think the most CO2 intensive countries should start without caring too much about carbon taxes in poorer countries. Compare the absolute and per capita emissions of the e.g. USA and Nigeria. You‘ll find it made a significant impact if the USA would reduce its emissions, while reducing the emissions in Nigeria - for now - can be neglected. When I have learned about carbon taxes, the idea has been a significant price for carbon emissions including imported goods AND paying back the total revenue to the people: deciding the revenue by the number of people from the baby to the grannies. The numbers and some tests have shown, that for rich people this money will be peanuts, because they are spending much more money for much more things causing much more pollution. Poor people - with or without carbon tax - cause few emissions, because they can’t afford them anyhow, thus for people will get more money back than they have to spend for the additional tax - even if they don’t change their consumption behavior. I have been surprised, that - according to the report I have seen - that I would be probably in the balanced range or maybe even having a penny more. I think I have an average income. Of course, some things we can buy today cheap will become much more expensive. I assume a trip by plane could be such a thing. But, those are the most climate damaging things and it is the target, that their consumption decreases. No need to make a university exam to decide what is green washing. The price would guide you good enough. Here in Germany the carbon price is ridiculous low - and nobody has ever said anything about paying the money to the people… 🙄
I live in Canada and I am on board with reducing GHG emissions but when there are zero alternative options to choose from that is where I have issues. For example I recently replace my furnace in my home. I live in the prairies where it is cold and the only affordable option is a natural gas furnace. It’s too cold and not cost effective for heat pumps or electric. The company I worked for had a house with electric base board heaters and one cold month the heating bill for the 1000 sqft house was over $2000. That is not an option for any Canadian. I think there is a-lot to fix first before canada should have introduced a carbon tax. Most cities in canada have poor public transit and we build our city infrastructure for cars. We need to fix our philosophy on how we design and build city’s and provide alternatives to citizens and build out our electricity grid. The canadian government is too focused on the carbon tax as a silver bullet to carbon emissions and it is not.
Very based. I also live on the praries, and I agree that heatpumps are just not a realistic option for many reasons. Even if we switched towards electric alternatives, we will still foot the bill with our provincial governments actively fighting against greener electricity, and we get hit with the carbon tax in our electricity bill. I wish that this would motivate change as intended, but Alberta and Saskatchewans Premiers are winning the misinformation campaign. Even if the federal government went on a marketing campaign to prove that yes, 8/10 Albertan families get more back compared to the taxes the paid, the majority would ignore the statistics and keep being rallied by Pierre's divide and conquer tactics. The direction we are headed in is unsustainable, and any hope of reducing the tax of electricty collapsed with the wind and solar moratorium and new regulations surrounding viewscapes, despite the very visible destruction we see with mines and deforresting. The blaming of wind for the grid alerts was also shamefull, as it was VERY evident the true cause was several Natural Gas plants failing, and just proves how deep this echo chamber goes.
@@TrueBlueKangaroo I think you should get you facts straight. Alberta has more wind and solar per capita than any other province in Canada and continues to build more. So to say they are fighting against green electricity is incorrect. Unfortunately solar and wind are not reliable. Solar and wind provide approximately 35% of the electrical capacity in the province of Alberta. When we we had the gird alerts only about 2% of this capacity was available. Yes when about 30% of you electrical system is not available the result is grid alerts. I guess you have bought the Liberal propaganda that that 8/10 families are better off with the carbon tax rebate which is not true. I refer you to the Parliamentary Budget Officer report of March 24, 2024 which concludes that majority of the people pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. The Trudeau Liberals only take into account the tax you pay on fuel and heating. They do not take into account the carbon tax on everything else you buy from groceries, clothes, furniture etc; Also you pay GST on top of the carbon tax.
The political problem here in Canada seems to come from a general ignorance about what carbon pricing is, and how the vast majority of the people actually get more back in rebates than they pay in. This is largely fueled by misinformation spread through corporate media (owned by a handful of wealthy people) and then parroted online by people seemingly payed to push a certain narrative. Many of my fellow Canucks do claim to care greatly about climate change in polling, especially the young people but when it comes to actually changing their actual lifestyles. The support of many of those people seems to fade away. In other words... they are environmentalists only when times are good. We had record wildfires last year here, and a fairly dry winter without a lot of snow leaving conditions primed for what is likely to be another bad summer. Focusing on the cost of disaster relief from inaction and the impact, especially on the poor could be another way. If a poor person loses their home to a wildfire. They are out out of luck and on the street. A rich person (that pollutes infinitely more) loses their home to wildfires or floods just moves into one of their other "investment properties." When the food prices go up because of worldwide droughts. The rich pay more, but they still eat. You as a poor person starve. We here in Canada have experienced corporate profiteering in the food and energy sector (bringing in record profits) that has been blamed on the Carbon tax. This could be solved with a windfall profits tax on corporations that our current government seems reluctant to implement.
The misinformation in Canada is honestly some of the the worst I've ever seen. According to the internet, Canada is essentially a third world country because of the carbon taxes. High inflation is because of the carbon tax. Homelessness is because of the carbon tax. Affordability issues is because of the carbon tax. it's asinine.
A few points from a fellow Canadian. 1. Environmentalist when times are good? I think more accurately when it’s free and easy to be an environmentalist like my subsidized heat pump. 2. I think you underestimate how much many people hate the tax with some passion. They certainly don’t need to be paid to rant about it. 3. Rich or poor if your house burns down you rely on insurance to rebuild your house. If you don’t have insurance you can loose your mortgage and quickly after your house.
Additionally it’s an uphill effort to promote the functional merits of a carbon tax program considering the countries with highest current and or historical ghg intensities are not participating. The global map in the video shows how too few countries are engaged. It’s the ‘right thing to do’ doesn’t resonate with all voters particularly while food and housing costs are rising significantly - Maslow’s hierarchy. Despite the current Canadian government being voted in for their promise to act on Canada’s lagging climate policies, and in turn rolling out a reasonably functioning CT plan, it’s the CT program that may be the nail that sees the same government now voted out. Unfortunately many truly beneficial programs can not set-up and deliver within typical political election cycles.
No matter what prices for goods are gonna go up. Force companies to be clean prices are passed to consumers, companies be dirty causing global prices go up because of supply and demand. No matter what prices are going up at least the carbon tax will pay the poor back incentivizing the companies to be richer by being cleaner to pay less tax. This conservative crap getting rid of the cabin tax is all politics to get in power at the expensive of the regular person but wrecking the environment and causing more problems Like I have asked before tell me a better solution that the conservative want to implement I will change my vote but they have not.
No mention of the Swedish regulation of stationary-source NOx emissions in the early 1990s, which could work equally well for CO2. Sweden was charging a few thousand dollars per ton while other countries were charging only a couple hundred, and nobody complained. Why? Because companies didn't pay the fee on _all_ of their emissions; they only paid for emissions in excess of the industry-average emission intensity rate. If the company's emission rate was better-than-average, their "fee" was negative (a rebate); they got paid for reducing their emissions. (Search for "Sweden refunded emission payments".)
I'm not so sure. NOx is an unwanted byproduct of inefficient combustion so it's already unwanted and all Sweden did was make it even more unwanted. CO2 is what is supposed to be created. Hydrocarbons in the fossil fuel burn with oxygen to form H2O and CO2. I think trying to get the market to fix it is futile. The government should just bypass the market, put wealth taxes on the 1% and use that money to build state factories and impliment clean energy outside of the capitalist market.
Thank you for providing some mich needed pro and con context around carbon taxes. Context that is always lost in political debates, as can be seen in the Canadian Parliament and other political bodies publicly debating this. As citizens it is getting harder than ever to be informed and educated and you guys are doing a great job to provide comprehensive information.
In Canada I fail to see how the consumer carbon tax is supposed to meaningfully reduce emissions? They say it’s supposed to change behaviours by making things like gas more expensive but then tell us that all the money is refunded anyway?! For most of us in Canada we have no options but to drive to get to work, groceries, etc. unlike many European cities, ours were built very sprawled out subdivisions with no real public transit options. Not that anyone can afford an EV or like the charging infrastructure is in place! Our homes are heated with Natural gas, they say to switch to electric heat pumps but they are expensive and don’t work well in the colder parts of the country. We are in an affordability crisis, and most younger generations now rent cause houses are too expensive. Good luck getting your landlord to change out a gas furnace or do anything to Improve the house efficiency. I can see the Carbon tax being a tool if we had other options, but for the majority of Canadians, we have no viable alternatives. So it just becomes another tax we have to pay and does little to reduce emissions!
In Canada, I own a Leaf and Sienna. Because we drive the Leaf 95% of the time and Ontario has an amazing 2.8 cent kWh overnight price. The Leaf charge-ups are usually about $1.10. Combined with the van, the carbon rebate pay covers 100% of Leaf charges and 40% of the van fill-ups. That said, carbon pricing does hit big users like farming and transportation systems - industrial winter heating, trains, trucks, taxis, and buses. Making these more expensive causes inflation. The carbon rebate does little to help that the cost of ground beef has gone up 40%.
If you put a carbon tax on gasoline, you cannot give it to poor people so they can buy more gas. That money would better be spent on public transportation (maybe almost free) and denser housing. I don’t think poor people are dying to maintain a personal auto.
Poor people buying gasoline is not the problem. Rich people buying 10 times or 100 times the gasoline is, As the carbon tax encourages investments in transportation systems that don't rely on fossil fuels, the poor will gravitate to those technologies too. But you're correct that at least some of the revenue should go directly to better public transit.
@@ronvandereerden4714 I am not saying that private jets should be left alone. You can carbon-tax private jets and subsidize "dense airplanes" or intercity trains. Although private jets are more visible and annoying, large numbers do matter. Ratio of number of cars to private jets is 20,000. Fuel consumption ratio of jets to cars is 75. Those large numbers add up. Let's not use every opportunity as a wealth transfer mechanism. Some allowance per citizen is also an option. Back in my country the city would charge you some low number for your first 30 tons of water. After 30 tons per person per month, the price would be 5x for additional water consumption.
@@chefnyc I don't consider it a wealth transfer. The poor can't afford to be put in the same boat as those who can choose options. It just keeps things closer to fair. Since you're pulling numbers out of a hat, the ratio of poor people driving cars to private jets is 200.
You cannot have gas guzzlers, unnecessary SUVs/pickups on the road, talk about CO2 emissions and then come back and try to make gas cheaper. If the gas is 30% more expensive, they will have to drive smaller cars and spend the same money on gas. Following are US numbers: 15,000 jets, 280MM cars, 24mpg auto, 4mpg private jet. So I stand corrected. Car dependent suburban sprawl is doing more damage than a few private jets.
According to economics, gas consumption is highly price inelastic. Meaning gas consumption doesn't change much even if price goes up a lot. Most people still need gas to get to work and the grocery store so they pay the higher cost. My guess is gas would have to go up to $6 or $7 a gallon, in the US, before gas or petrol consumption would start to fall at all in the US.
But it's a different story when you have more means of transportation, a lot of countries do not rely so much on cars for people to go to work. But if you have no alternative means of transport, tax is not gonna work
Likely untrue and not a problem anyway. While you are definitely right that gas prices would need to increase astronomically (right now, they're the cheapest in the world) before gas consumption stops entirely, that doesn't mean there isn't a significant impact from high prices. When gas prices go up, you see less driving overall, more acceptance of alternatives like EVs, and generally more willingness to explore energy alternatives. It makes the problem more present and personal. Plus... if raising the cost of ownership doesn't crater usage, that means more money that can then be redirected to infrastructure and supporting other alternatives. Taxing cigarettes and nicotine didn't stop smoking outright - but it does give people pause, another reason to consider quitting, and a decent revenue stream to combat the problem from other avenues. Just because it's not the sole silver bullet solution doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
yes and no, like always poor people are affected the most in my country like always, ~50% of the price of fuel is tax only because of the pandemic they decreased the envirommental tax, the ISP (tax over fuel and energy) decreased from 70.7% to 60.1%. Because of the war europeans decreased gas consumption by 10%.
As for now, gas is still very much needed for mobility and the fact that renewable energy is cheaper than ever hasn't stopped this, yet! But the future may very well be different. 🙌 For further discussion, check out our video "Are we running out of oil" here 👉 ua-cam.com/video/fkrJ8gcHqQl/v-deo.html.
@@Cyrribrae I don't understand your correlation with taxes on cigarettes and nicotine to the carbon tax. I asked these questions, why are cigarette and nicotine inelastic? Because the consumer is addicted and there are very few alternatives. Why are products that produce carbon emissions inelastic? Because people have to eat food and live. The concept that inelastic demand of a product doesn't actually cause the consumer to search for alternatives, otherwise it wouldn't be consider inelastic but elastic. In terms of a tax, this is entering the domain of a dead-weight loss to the market, this means the consumer will have less money for other things to purchase in other markets, an overall unbalanced market. If you're a Canadian, the is already happening in our market with the cost of living crisis. The most peaceful result of market change will be increased wages which defeats the purpose of the tax. At the most worst is gradual unrest among the population of which indicated in the video as to why politicians are generally hesitant in promoting such taxes. If you really want a solution, you have to make carbon emitting products elastic. A tax doesn't do that.
Meanwhile in Canada the carbon tax does not force businesses to use less carbon. It forces them to pass on the extra expense of running a business down to the consumer in order to protect the all mighty stock price of publicly traded companies. We are paying carbon tax for ourselves as well as corporations. There is zero chance of ever receiving more money from the rebate than we pay in proxy unless we don't spend money on anything, including groceries. If the government thinks they can outsmart corporations they have to remember these are highly trained professionals who will get replaced by the shareholders in a heart beat if the stock price falls. Average citizens are the ones being hurt and having their lives destroyed over this massively failed social experiment. Call it what it is, just another way to take more money from us because this government has decided they are more qualified to spend our money than we are. Why do we need money anyways? The government should have at least 80% of each of our dollars made by the time we pay taxes on income as well as on everything else that costs money... Canadians are waking up to this farce and we will repair our country after this government is laughed out of parliament by the entire world.
Issue in Canada is that they are trying a European solution. When you live in a country with 6 time zones, vast transportation is required. Also with a cold climate, heating is required. There is very little room to cut back. because of housing prices, many live more than an hour from work. It doesn't matter what the price is, the same amount of fuel will be consumed. some may say lets go EV but in this climate it's not actually feasible in the winter over longer distances. Same with heating, heat is required. our electrical grid has issues for heat pump use, as well these pumps stop functioning at low temps that are found for much of the winter in canada. Lastly, Canadians has some socialist tendencies, but also American thoughts. So giving money to other countries does not sit well.
The redistribution of the Carbon Tax in Canada is a completely bizarre concept. If you charge a carbon tax, all the revenue should go to programs that will lead to carbon neutral energy sources or decarbonization programs. For example, in Norway these funds are used for things like: Renewable Energy Investments; Energy Efficiency Programs; Subsidies for Electric Vehicles (EVs); Incentives for EV charging stations; Climate Research; etc.. The Canadian model is just being used to fund a completely unrelated program for the redistribution of wealth and buying votes for the party in power. It is embarrassing being a Canadian these days.
@@Gordonz1 But are they???? The Trudeau Liberal government line is that 60% of the people receive more than they pay. If that is the case how can it also fund these other programs. Someone is not telling the truth.
The problem with the vast majority of carbon taxes are they make investing in reducing carbon harder to do! In my case, the carbon tax on my natural gas heating is over $1000/yr so instead of having that $1000 to replace an old single pane window, I have to pay the tax and due to income, I get little to no refund back. So instead of reducing carbon - the carbon tax here is more of a wealth redistribution scheme than an attempt to reduce carbon. A better solution would be to have everyone's (including businesses) direct carbon tax payments (natural gas, gasoline, etc) into a fund for that person or business can access to invest in upgrades or repairs that will reduce CO2. For those who can't reduce any emissions they can trade them to those who can.
In Denmark, we do this partially. Personally, I would have liked to see more of it go this way. Some of the ways to use the carbontax money are to subsidise ground heating pumps, insolating windows, insolating houses, investment in research at universities for better solutions, subsidising private solar panels, help funding reneeable energy and much more.
Yeah, it kinda assumes people are able to make long term financial decision and investments. Replacing the old stuff would be worth it because of the higher cost associated with the carbon tax, but some people that don't have the access to capital through savings or loans or family will be stuck paying allowances for the old polluting system, being unable to switch to the new, cleaner ones. It especially works that way with cars, buying a new electric car costs like 40k, and many people simply can't afford that. So they will be stuck paying carbon tax for fuel for their old car, making it even harder to save up for the switch to electric. That's why I think it might be better in some cases like the cars to put the carbon tax at the sale of the car, not the fuel. That way you would "pre pay" for the emissions during the whole expected lifecycle of the car at the point of sale, adding let's say $10 000 to the cost of new petrol cars, encouraging people to not buy new ones, and instead buy electric or hybrid when buying a new car. That way I think the transition would be more gradual, and not impact the poorest the most.
You admit to paying $1000 more per year in carbon tax. So then think ahead that it will get more expensive over time. Instead of complaining about it, be proactive, use subsidies and rebates and get a heat pump. We did and now we're paying less for heating and after 10 years, we'll actually be saving money. Same principal when switching to an electric car. It's around 10 times cheaper to drive an EV in Canada vs a gas car and in Europe it's around 4 times. Simple math. People just need to stop complaining and get moving.
@@SwissSchweiz Proactive actions like that cost money, money I do not have because in part, I am paying a carbon tax. I’d love nothing more than to put that money towards affordable upgrades that reduce carbon but instead I must send them to the tax man. Secondly heat pumps do not currently work at -40 in a province which gets brown outs from power shortages when wind & solar don’t generate which the past two cold snaps was exactly what happened. Also with power prices here, switching to a heat pump would cost me MORE than natural gas because we do not have reliable renewable energy & all natural gas/coal power generation gets carbon taxed! So I’d still be paying carbon taxes with a heat pump. As for EV’s there is just not any affordable ones available with the range I need to drive. I need one that can do 500km when new so that after the battery degrades I can still do 300km round trips with adequate safety margins in winter. The only ones with that sort of range are $50-90k if you can even find one in stock… and I just can’t even imagine affording 2 EV’s that between them would have monthly payments as much (or more) than my monthly mortgage payment!
I am a Canadian living in northern British Columbia who can first hand say the carbon tax has done nothing but hurt middle and lower class Canadians. Nobody wants to pollute anymore than they have too. But to be taxed to heat your home or take your children to school, this is just ridiculous. I live in a small town where public transit is basically non existent and the nearest major city is a 16 hour drive away. The idea of no pollution is great until you realize your sick family member needs to go see a medical specialist and it’s 16 hour drive or 1.5 hour flight away. Whether you like it or not where lots of Canadians live with our technology and northern temperatures you cannot get to the doctor without burning fossil fuels. And to be taxed on it when people need it the most is just absurd. You could say move to the city where the proper medical staff is equipped, but let’s be honest no “middle class” person could afford to live in Vancouver. But don’t worry the people who can flex their tesla will get a rebate.
In Canada. Taxing all our money-making businesses to the point they can't compete and redistributing the wealth is ridiculous. Incentivise. Our horrible prime minister is probably the most hated in history. He has doubled our country's debt, and he is killing our business.
Low carbon taxes cause more pollution. Studies have backed up that when people have a sense they are already paying for carbon, they are less likely to choose environmentally friendly items. Small examples of this is when people are charged a few cents per plastic bag at a grocery store, it actually reduces the percent of people that use reusable bags since people have a sense it's OK to use plastic at that point.
If all these countries have been implementing a carbon tax or ETS then why is global emissions still increasing at the same rate as before? Shouldn't the tax be proportional to the biggest polluters? These policies only compare carbon emitters in the same country but this is a global problem. A better way of looking at this is proportionally taxing the highest global polluters. Why put a $80 per ton tax on Canadians if we contribute to less than 2% of global emissions
In Canada, the carbon tax is an extremely controversial issue politically. At the same time, a lot of people don’t understand it as it has been poorly explained to the populace, thus making it an easy target for groups who oppose it.
Or explain why someone in a nursing home who hasn’t driven for 7 years and has millions in assets gets the same rebate that the family of 4 with two vehicles and 4 mouths to feed does.
@@Buckshot99 If you understand carbon pricing, that’s easy to answer. What is the nursing home resident’s carbon footprint compared to the family of four? The amount of the rebate that someone holds on to is a function of how much someone emits, not how much they have in the bank.
@@Buckshot99 Again, you seem to misunderstand carbon pricing. Not all families are the same. It all depends on how much carbon dioxide that family emits. Think of it as givers and receivers. With rebates, if the family endeavours to keep their emissions low, they will be net receivers and come out ahead financially. If they don’t care how much they pollute and use fossil fuel derived energy like crazy, they will be net givers.
There needs to be a carbon tax because right now pollution is free! Anyone can emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to their heart's content and literally everyone else has to pay the price. We need to flip that equation around, those who pollute need to be the ones facing the consequences.
The biggest mistake we've ever done was move away from nuclear energy. It should be utilized in collaboration with other energy sources all over the place by now. Especially since so many things around it have advanced. Our knowledge of safety measures are much better understood. Also Capabilities in engineering, material science, technology, robotics, etc. are much more advanced now. We need to improve our environment by lowering emissions. The only things holding us back is past trauma instilled in people (which is understandable but we gotta give it a chance to prove we can do so much better) Did they outlaw electricity or oil, coal when things went wrong in the early days of those fields? No! They kept going and understood things usually are bumpy and difficult in the beginning and kept going even tho those sources negatively impact our environment and health a million times more than nuclear energy options ever could. Yet governments and Legal procedures BLOCK any sort of progression from happening. We'd be lucky to see even the slightest projects approved and finished with-in the next 100 years.. It's very annoying to see how much we have gotten in our own way when it comes to improving or advancing certain things. Instead we let fear, money, man made "required legal processes" Stop us from doing anything other than wind, solar, oil, natural gas, damming our rivers, mining for minerals... It's very frustrating because we should be able to use all these options in collaboration. If we actually wanted to improve anything. That's what we need to do and stop letting so much potential get blocked from ever occurring in the first place.. It's really irritating. I wish certain people didn't make this so "complicated and difficult" Why would any reasonable person want to block progression?
the cheapest and cleanest source of energy is hydro and Canada has a lot of undeveloped hydro. We do not need a lot of new dams, we need to make our existing dams more efficient. Use the same water multiple times by piping the water below the dam back up to be recycled using pipes and the natural energy of water flow.
I live in Newfoundland Canada where we have very limited choices in terms of heating or vehicle fuels. Natural gas is not available, only heating oil and electricity. My town does not have public transportation and the distances to neighbouring towns mandate the use of a personal vehicle every time. In early 2024, Newfoundland has very few EV charging stations and uptake on EVs is negligible. The Carbon tax is nonetheless applied across the country without taking into account the aforementioned disadvantages in Newfoundland. We, as consumers do not have the ability to choose green energy for our vehicles which makes the Carbon Tax onerous and unfair in my opinion. The Government should have first implemented green energy choices in our province and established solar or wind options for us to invest in. Instead, the government has chosen a punitive taxation mechanism working alongside existing high taxation and inflation on almost all other aspects of life. They have also made no attempt to reduce the percentage of goods being transported nationwide by diesel trucks - at this time 75% of goods are transported by diesel trucks which assuredly adds to the cost of all those goods (groceries, consumer products, delivery services and fees). The rebate is heralded as a bonus for all of us but, when it arrives, it is swallowed up with one trip to the grocery store. I would much prefer an incentive based system with readily available green choices instead of punishment and would also prefer to see other tax rates reduced instead of a rebate - instead, the government is also RAISING those other tax rates. Underlying all of this; Canada's global emissions amount to 1.6% of the totals and it seems our pain is not worth the measly reduction in emissions so far (circa 2% of our 1.6%). Carbon taxation without additional effort from the government seems like a lazy approach with miniscule results. In Canada it will result in this government losing the next election.
Two issues. Conservation doesn’t appear to be part of your formulation of this issue. Not all ICE engines use the same amount of fuel. Secondly, Canada may produce “only” 1.6% of global emissions but it only has about 0.7% of the planet’s population. What precedent would that set if Canada didn’t take emission reductions seriously?
1 tipping point can put Eastern Canada and Europe into an ice age. Why? The fresh water from Greenland can stop the Gulf Stream. The current has slowed down and is expected to stop within 5 to 100 years. That is not the only tipping point. People just think our ecosystem isn’t that delicate and how much harm could a few degrees make.
We're going to jack your gas and heating bills to force you to use clean energy. So please get an electric vehicle that is over $50,000 that won't withstand the cold and swap out your furnace for a heat pump (which youre on the hook for btw) that won't effectively heat your house. Solved!
Burning plant material isn't the same as burning coal and oil. One could argue coal and oil are plant material but they still hold an important difference: coal and oil are fossil fuels while wood, charcoal and some plant based fuels aren't. Fossil fuels result from processes that took millions of years and, therefore, they represent carbon that was trapped for, also, millions of years. If I plant a tree and then make it into wood to fuel my fireplace, the carbon released is the same (or less) amount of carbon the tree captured while it grew. Burning wood or ethanol is completely different than burning coal and oil.
I'm Canadian, and I think the biggest issue is that people still have no idea how much they contribute to GHG. It should have started with annual reporting added to our tax forms, then rebates could've been targeted and success measured. Now it's an inevitable tax and we just see the government as taking. And don't see the reduction.
I live In Denmark and our carbon taxes are braindead stupid. Etc. The taxes on electricity, fossil fuels and so forth, many which are 150% does not go towards nature restoration but instead healthcare & mainly just bureaucracy(cold hands). Yes. You might argue that it is indirectly effective, reducing the consumers usage of fossil fuels etc. And also that more healthcare as a result of taxes based on fossil fuels kind of acts as a repair for something negative. It's not a sustainable solution, as it doenst entirely promote carbon neutral solutions or even support environmental friendly companies. It's just a penalty and a poor excuse for more taxes to help greenwash the politicians marketing campaign. Although I do believe the the government's and companies are getting better, more conscious and informed, working together, and getting more sustainable by the day.
Carbon tax doesn't work in Canada on an individual level, maybe for corporations it has an effect. The only real effect is its strong signalling from the government pollution will get further punished in the future, so those that consumers with long term thinking will avoid products that pollute if possible. The rest of it is just income redistribution, as the tax isn't producing alternative options for consumers to reduce their emissions. It would be much better implemented if the tax was kept by the government to provide tax rebates for heat pumps, led lights, etc, and larger infrastructure projects to put trains everywhere connecting the Great Lakes and Cascadia regions integrated with the US, as well as the Trans-Canada passenger railway.
It's a chicken or egg situation though. Canadians won't consider living more densely, walking, biking, using public transit, considering decarbonization when making purchases without the tax. With the tax in place these considerations appear and decarbonization becomes part of the zeitgeist. Suddenly the political will for big climate friendly actions, such as major investments in low carbon transportation and housing become the reality. In a democracy the government can't force us to live a low carbon lifestyle unless we also want that lifestyle. The corollary of that is that we won't get the public investments required to change our way of living unless we continue to signal to our represented leaders that we're willing to take our medicine and do the hard work of decarbonizing our ways of living.
Canadians have been resistant when it comes to Carbon pricing. Many in Canada pollute pretty much the same as they always did, and complain about it costing more. Rather than changing their pollution habits.
the best way to allocate the money from the carbon tax is to give back to those who are affected by the pollution (let's say 10% of the carbon tax is derived from additional health issues caused by the extra pollution, then 10% of the money collected should goes toward treating those health issues)
The rebates will incentivized ppl to pollute the more they pollute the more money they get in rebates. Problem is tax not connected with incentives and keep ppl from getting resources to acquire green products
The price of emissions allowances in the EU today is about 60 EUR/t CO2. One year ago, the price was 100 EUR/t CO2. This is a very unstable and unpredictable base to calculate the return on invest. This and the volatile price of fossil fuels are reasons, why this principle does not work in real world as expected.
It may seem odd that the average voter would oppose a carbon tax, considering that the wealthiest 1% emit twice as much carbon as the poorest 50% of the global population. Redirecting the revenue from this tax to lower-income households could result in an increase in their income. Although the disparity may not be as pronounced within individual countries as it is globally, it is primarily those with the financial means to emit who would bear the cost of a carbon tax.
I think replacing the Value Added Tax with a Carbon Added Tax is a good idea. But we should do so on ALL emissions, not just looking at the emissions from the biggest installations (like the ETS). An interesting side effect would be that gasoline would get a bit cheaper, as stated in 6:50 1 ton of CO2 per 4000km driving, and they recommend about 150 euro per ton, so 0.0375 euro per km, that is less than what you currently pay in excise duties and VAT (about 1 euro per liter at 20km/l that is 0.05 per km)
There are two relevant questions: Should we tax before or after burning the fossil fuels and should we set the price of burning carbon or rather cap the amount of burned carbon?
One of the best and easiest ways to reduce heating needs, lower monthly costs and slash carbon emissions is thin film plastic on all windows and invest in beefing up insulation. When highly insulated then we can heat and power our homes with low cost and distrbuted renewables in every region 🇨🇦.
5-15% reduction in emissions in 7 years is not significantly more than 0-2% PER YEAR. It's just that the system in BC has been there longer. That seems like a fairly significant impact on emissions to me.. no?
The carbon tax sounds all well and good but at least in Canada, there is no widely available alternative to carbon based fuels yet. No electric or hydrogen trucks, trains, tractors or other heavy equipment. Options for cars fare a bit better but the availability and pricing is nowhere near where it needs to be to allow the average consumer to buy electric (and that's not even bringing into consideration whether or not they can have a private charger which is almost certainly a requirement). Most homes are heated by natural gas because that is how developments and new homes are hooked up for heating. Sure you have heat pumps or electric forced air but that is not cheap to swap out. I'm in the process of buying a pre-construction townhome and i don't think I have even been given an option for electric heating. For most people, continuing to use the equipment they have is the only option. My point is, the carbon tax would be fair if there were options that could easily and cheaply be selected but there are not that many options if any for certain pollution sources, and this means most people are just forced to pay more to live for seemingly no reason. This creates a lot of resentment and rightfully so.
In Canada the carbon tax is used as a political slush fund for favored constituencies. The tax does not remove a single molecule of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. More practical solutions such as bio sequestration, energy efficiency, and renewable energy are not promoted because far left politicians prefer a perpetual issue to push on their poorly educated base over actually solving the problem. For example, in Manitoba 98% of the electricity comes from renewable hydro. The cost of building the latest hydro dam is $13B +/-. Manitoba exports clean hydro power. The far left federal government spent $500B on handouts for people sitting at home doing nothing while the same expenditure could have built about 40 hydro project equivalents. Canada could be carbon neutral if every resident planted 2000 trees and at $1 per sapling the cost would be less than the carbon tax. In 9 years the far left government has planted less than 1 million. The so called environmentalist don't want to feel morally superior, but don't want to get their hands dirty.
I prefer to plant trees. They are missing all over the world, year by year. I'm tired of taxes, for sugar products, co2 etc. It looks like a business not a fight for a better life. Wealthy people don't care about pollution, they drive 5l engines, take private jets, yachts etc. The most of the people can almost afford a car, not because they want it but because they need it for work for family etc. And these idiots come with taxes to make their life even worse. There is no day dedicating to planting trees. We should declare an international trees planting, and all of us to plant 2-3 trees every year. We need an hour. That tree could be bought from our own taxes. Who doesn't participate, to pay more taxes in the coming year.
Trees do nothing for carbon capture. The carbon that we are putting in the atmosphere is coming from below ground, not from woods. Trees have a lifecycle of 40-50 years, once they die, that carbon goes back to the atmosphere (some of it under the form of methane, making things even worse). Therefore, "planting more trees" is near to useless. Either you find a cheap way to capture CO2 from the air and store it geologically, or you just keep it in the ground.
I think there should be a carbon sales tax and dividend. This would solve the issue of companies leaving since it doesn't matter where they're set up for the tax. And while sales taxes are generally regressive, having a dividend (aka UBI) would make it actually progressive
In Europe there have always been high taxes on fuel. Carbon tax is just a new buzzword to add more tax on the same products. High fuel prices have never stopped traffic. They have made Europeans drive more efficient cars then Northern Americans.
It seems like the Emission Trading Scheme in the EU might be starting to finally show results. It got to about 60EUR in the last few years, up from about 20EUR in the previous decade. Here in Czech republic we were having long discussing when to shut down our coal power plants, whether in 2038 or 2033, and now it seems they might be shutting down in a year or two because the cost of the allowances made them unprofitable. Which also means that everyone is now frantically trying to quickly find replacements, sadly mostly gas given the short timeframe.
Canadian and no, the carbon tax is nothing short of a disaster. First, you need viable green substitutes which our climate and geography don’t allow. Second, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage to the US which has no c tax. Finally, the evidence of effectiveness is thin. Most reports I have seen are long in projection. I suspect that the Canadian carbon tax will have a limited life with 2025 bringing a new regime.
Great explainer. I agree that some portion of carbon taxes should be redirected to UNFCCC adaptation and loss and damage funds, currently much underfunded. I like the idea of rebates, but surely these rebates should just go to the poor and working class, with inequality at an all-time high. I’ve never understood why carbon taxes don’t go directly into mitigating the equivalent amount of carbon emitted, for example through reforestation and energy efficiency projects, and mass transit development - or even twice the amount, so that we can start drawing down on already dangerous levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Truly what we need is a once-off global wealth tax, or jubilee, on the worlds richest 800 individuals, to pay for the green transition and to level the playing field. And after that, to insulate politicians from the corrupting influence of corporations and the wealthy, all of whom have an outsized carbon footprint.
A carbon tax can 100% solve the problem of climate change. It is the simplest and most effective way to get anything done, it's called capitalism! When its expensive to pollute, people will not pollute. It is tough when your country is taking this required step in the right direction and others are not. It can seem unfair. But when people start taking these painful but required steps, others will start to follow. Climate change is a very easy to solve problem, incredibly easy. Just make it expensive to pollute. I live in Canada and work in the oil industry and support the climate tax; it makes me proud to be Canadian. Our PM might be unpopular to many in the country. As the video points out it is very politically dangerous to take this required and effective step, it just makes me respect him more. Any conservative slug can suck the tit of big business and do well politically, it takes real courage to make a change.
In my state of Colorado, the fossil fuel companies are paying education, healthcare and others. At some point the public does not want the fossil fule companies to stop funding them. Inadvertently the public is invested in Fossil fuels. This needs to stop. Renewables have come down as you point out. Fossil fuels are holding the loss of educational funding over the publics head.
Trees help reduce carbon dioxide levels. 🌲 But trees alone cannot sequester enough emissions to save the climate. Nor should investing in reforestation become an enabler for more and more deforestation. So many species and entire ecosystems depend on ancient trees plus that new forests only absorb part of the emissions that are released when forests are felled.
The fundamental problem with the carbon tax is that it is based on the 'good faith' presumption. It works well in more 'honest' nations (like Sweden), but take uber-capitalist nations like the US, they are pretty much a failure. This is largely because such nations use the 'tax' as a 'share'/'stock' and then do weird things with it, like trade it, offload it, exchange it, use it as 'derivatives' etc, whence it pretty much loses all its value & even original intent...Couple that with a 'selfish' society and a cut-throat ambitious & competitive political scenario, and you have a recipe for disaster...where one is (self)deluded into believing that the 'carbon tax' is doing good, instead of the truth, that it is it's merely a tool to be used by the rich to grow richer & degrade the environment even more........
Ya I do get the Canadian Carbon Rebate & as the cheapest best way to curb carbon use I'm all for it. Does it drive up the cost of living, by comparison to the price gouging, increased profit margins, Corporate Bonus's & Stockholder Returns going on at Walmart, The Petro Giants & the Grocery Chains not even a little bit
Climate change requires science, technology and innovation. Instead of punishing people with more taxes, provide people with affordable clean alternatives. Intelligent people know that science, technology and innovation is the answer to climate change not taxes. Taxes are the go to of the intellectually lazy. Make the better alternative affordable and you will succeed. Punish your citizens and you will fail. Taxes have been, are and always will be inflationary. I live in Canada, and right now there is a movement chanting 'Axe the Tax' and it is gaining traction. A growing number of Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, many waiting in line at food banks for a meal and living in tents or cars. You want to get people on board, give them an affordable clean alternative, taxing them is punitive and it only alienates people who are trying to meet the rent and eat.
Another possible solution to make a carbon tax palatable to the public is a carbon dividend. The money raised from the tax gets distributed in a flat amount to everyone. For the people who contribute least to emissions, they can end up breaking even or in the black. The wealthy, meanwhile, can easily take the hit and have an incentive to pollute less (whether that’s riding their private jet less or investing in energy efficiency in their business is up to them). And economy-wide, there will be that desired price signal to emit less. Invest your carbon dividend in insulation, and next year you’ll save even more, etc. There may be a need for special cases for the odd case of low-income people with necessarily high footprints. (Small farmers, for example, may need exemptions/discounts since they’re generally not flush with cash but could have a high carbon footprint than most people in their income bracket). But I think for a lot of people, the carbon dividend could be as anticipated as expected tax returns are in the US.
This is exactly how Canada's system works. Disinformation and climate change denial amongst the far right is still a major issue hampering our efforts. The vast majority of citizens are either disinterested in understanding how the carbon rebate works, or dumb... or both, and right wing populist politicians have seized on the opportunity to sow discord and spread falsehoods for their own benefit.
Canada gives a flat rebate to everyone and it is still widely unpopular. How many people do you think own private jets? In Canada 250k a year gets you in the top 1% of earners but that doesn’t get you a jet. I’m all for taxing the Uber rich but that’s a fraction of a percentage of Canadians and it won’t change much.
The Carbon Tax in Canada will be gone after the next election if there is a change of government. Whether you like it or not, the Carbon Tax has been very misunderstood here from the being. It is now seen as an affordability issue by many people in Canada. Had the government used the Carbon tax to replace an existing tax ( like sales or income tax), then it would be a different story.
I’m Canadian and how we are doing it is waiting until the next election and scrapping the whole carbon scheme hopefully. The environment is changing yes are humans a driving factor sure but it’s changing the way we relate to the world so much quicker than a tax can ever hope to change.
Why isn't Germany highlighted as having a carbon tax? We do have a CO2 tax by now, haven't we? Plus we've been having the "environmental tax" on fuel for a long time, which basically is a carbon tax, isn't it?
Hey there! Germany has the a law called the Brennstoff-Emissionshandelsgesetz, the BEHG. But as stated in the name, it's an emissions trading system (ETS), not a carbon tax per se. You can hear more about ETS from 4:58 onwards in the video!
Relying on capitalism to solve its carbon emissions problem by applying pressure with a carbon tax has led to such innovations as: purchasing opposition politicians who run on the platform of repealing the carbon tax.
Why is India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan or China did not think of Child/Human tax to address their population explosion? We may not be here with Carbon tax, if population explosion would have been arrested better.
Hmmh that sounds quite unethical but also, probably unpractical. We have a video just for this topic 👇 "Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?" ua-cam.com/video/kUL-q7ptDW4/v-deo.html
Developed countries have already emitted a lot of green house gases while countries like India have emitted much less GHGs and per capita emissions are also pretty low as compared to global average, and imposing tariffs will restrict India's industrial growth. While India lags in the manufacturing sector.
Yeah you're absolutely right about that one...Maybe the idea of compensation would therefore be very fair. Did you already see this piece from us? 👇 "Climate damage: How and why rich countries should pay up" ua-cam.com/video/KGOvRn5_QRg/v-deo.html Or maybe we need degrowth - where Global North and Global South could meet somewhere half way? 👇 "What if we stopped making so much stuff?" ua-cam.com/video/_22mKe_OLsg/v-deo.html
In Canada, the carbon tax has, unfairly, taken the blame for the huge amount of inflation we've had since the peak of the COVID pandemic. The actual impact of the carbon tax has been tiny compared to the inflation caused by other factors but, thanks to populist politicians, people just don't believe the facts which show that.
Ah I gotta disagree that a carbon tax actually does anything to make green tech cheaper. Increasing the cost of coal, oil and gas has zero effect on the cost of lithium and cobalt, and in fact may increase the cost of many green tech that rely on fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing or transportation
Let's say you are a company that has to pay this kind of tax, you may want to change and invest in new tech that doesn't generate co2 to avoid those payments but because you have to pay it the cash flow of the company is not enough to afford that transition. In order for this to work there has to be tax breaks for the ones who want to invest in change
The carbon tax rollout in Canada has been a mess. Chances are it won't survive the next election. Some provinces get very minimal rebates so it's not a consistent program across the country
I think that the carbon tax is important but would need to be implemented properly to be effective. I think using the funding to decrease taxes elsewhere would be good but shouldn’t be the only use of the money. I think a majority of the tax collected should go towards subsidies for fund green projects and ways to make renewable energy so affordable that people would feel foolish for picking any other option. I also think having the tax revenue going to cleaning up damages done to developing and underdeveloped nations would be beneficial but I don’t think it would be unrealistic to expect most developed countries to agree on funding these cleanup efforts. I think the outcome with the most likelihood of happening and would have the best long term effect would be funding green projects and improving renewable energy.
Agreed. I would like to see the money collected go directly into building the infrastructure for green energy vehicles (HFC and EVs) and public transit systems that use clean energy. So far, in Canada, there is really no sign of this happening. Why take the money in the form of a tax and then simply hand it back again? It is that pointless exercise that makes me feel the Carbon Tax is ill conceived and surely consumes resources to administer the process.
@@SnowHarp agreed, another thing I think should be considered in addition to what I said prior is subsidize researching how to improve upon any negative impacts in the production of renewable energy and infrastructure.
Using a carbon tax might be a way to reduce inflation and interest rates by shifting the burden from the monetary side to the fiscal side. Relieving pressure on housing and the cost of green tech. It would drive business and lower the cost of living!
Canada should produce LNG massively to provide countries burning coal. Help the big polluting countries lower emissions. Taxing Canadians won't change anything. I ask every Canadians to participate in the axe the tax rally that will happen on the 1st of april from coast to coast. Canadians have had enough of this nonsense.
10:55 What we should make more appealing is acting fast against climate catastrophe. We should realize that the costs of climate change will only increase the longer we wait. The fact is, what climate scientists have underlined for a long time, is that we need a massive social-economical transformation that ... NOW. There are enough proposals by scientists that suggest how we could fund climate mitigation policies to stay in line with out goals; we have the material and financial resources, but only lack political will because this transformation inherently questions and undermines our current system of power and hegemony, which is why so many actors block political progress, simply because they hold onto their literally bloody richess. Not just do we have the necessary resources for a just transition, but the costs WILL increase the more time passes which will make the whole transition even more painful. And we need to recognize that a transition towards a sustainable society (not just economy) will INEVITABLY be costly and painful, a price we have to pay, i.e., purposefully stagnating growth or even commit to degrowth, which only a minority is willing to pay, while the majority tragically slumbers thanks to either ignorance or greed. If we want to avoid the hardests and most catastrophic impacts of climate change, then we have to pay this price. There is simply no other way in this short time now. Saying this is not simply ideology or belief, as I'm only referencing suggestions from science. If you want to motivate and make environmental policies appealing to the masses, then the best way is to make everyone understand what is at stake, which is hardly the case right now. A start is to read the latests IPCC report summaries and people will begin to get a finer picture of our dire situation and, more importantly, the urgency to act NOW. The world would truly be a much better place if people had access scientific literature and knew how to inform themselves and navigate it, instead of using media and social networks that only (re)produce simplistic views, biases, and untruths on topics that are socially incredibly important and where scientific understanding is fundamentally key to grasp an issue.
in Canada, the government straight up lie saying 8 out of 10 canadians are better of with the carbon tax rebates, when the truth is, according to the Budget Officer, when you add the direct and indirect costs of the consumers carbon tax, most people are net negative after the rebates. According to his report, it generates economic slowdown, massive layoffs, cost of doing business increase that will lead to increase of poverty in the country.
Is your country taxing emissions? How are they doing it?
How come you dont label Germany on your maps? Is the BEHG not a Carbon tax?
Or the ETS. You are Deutsche Welle, Watt to represent is. What's your reason for leaving us out on the map.
I'm Canadian, so, yes, we have a carbon tax. It's due to increase April 1, 2024, and has also become a political hot potato, with polls predicting the ouster of our current PM, Justin Trudeau. Right now, the carbon pricing plan is set at $65 a tonne. As of April 1, it will be $80 a tonne, and will continue to rise annually by $15 until it reaches $170 a tonne by 2030. Sadly, too many Canadians are carbon tax illiterates, so it's hard to say what the future holds for our collective effort to reduce carbon emissions, thereby helping to reverse climate change.
According to your video, Mexico has an ETS however it should be noted that the system is still in the test phase (and has been for many years) and not fully operational.
Worsenjng the recession byy taxing 😅
I'm in Canada, and think our government has done a really poor job of explaining how the carbon tax is supposed to work, and how much -- or how little -- it's adding to prices of essential goods.
I think they also should have implemented some kind of cap on how much they can push those costs onto us, and how much the company is supposed to have to pay out of their profits. The profiteering of all the major corporations in Canada lately has been completely unacceptable. For me personally the carbon tax is a big benefit, but I don't feel we as individuals should have to get raked over the coals, as much as the companies' profit margins should take a small hit. We're getting gouged left right and center and there's no watchdog that's capable of actually stopping anything. Things are looking bleak honestly...
Exactly
At this stage climate change is going to add a lot more to prices of essential goods. Olive oil doubled in price because of dry weather, cocoa prices skyrocket due to same thing. Whatever its adding, its still low comparing to what its gonna be without carbon tax.
As a Canadian, that tries to stay informed. The carbon tax hasn't been made clear as to how its helping the climate, if it even is. Even in this video, they said they take money from us and then give us some back. However, those who get it back are low income. Those in the middle income, and just trying to survive like myself. Seem to be hit hard. We pay the tax, don't get anything back and face the struggle to stay afloat, even on multiple incomes in one family. Also, Canada is a very low polluter on the whole. Even if we completely cut out our pollution. It would have nearly no effect on anything. Also, Canada has one of the largest land mass with forests. And what do trees do? Absorb co2 and emit o2. Imo, the Canadian gov needs to show proof on how it's helping the world and not just keep saying 8 out of 10 Canadians are better off. When the reality is that we all are suffering bc of this tax.
Communication aside, what's the point of the carbon tax and provide a rebate? Would it not be just as effective to have a lower rate? The government has to pay to set up a rebate program, more money down the drain
Hey DW! This was a great video. I live in Canada and it was interesting hearing our current solution being shared.
Personally and I am not sure how many Canadians would agree with me. I am not the biggest fan of our current method, because it just feels like shuffling money.
Its funny how feelings arent fact but they can be powerful. My reason for my feelings about it, is that with my income it is not enough money reimbursed to allow me to afford alternatives options and I still cringe when I go to the pump. Also, I imagine that people on the flip side with a higher disposable income with limited need for the reimbursement, already make enough to afford to transition.
Id personally rather see the money reinvested into a more robust transit system or nuclear plants to lower our energy costs.
Thanks for the comment Jeremy, fellow Canadian here. First, as a graduate nuclear engineering student I'm so happy to hear support for nuclear power! Second, I would echo your thoughts and add that putting a price on what you want to disincentivise only makes what you are trying to incentivise cheaper in a relative sense, not absolute. To actually drive adoption of more efficient technologies, they have be more affordable in an absolute sense. One option we have seen is subsidizing heat pumps or EV purchases. While a subsidy technically makes a given technology cheaper in an absolute sense, it's a band-aid for the technology being too expensive.
I recently saw a fascinating video by Just Have a Think on UA-cam about "re-conductoring" transmission lines and the amount of energy we could save is impressive! While I agree that carbon cannot be endlessly dumped into our atmosphere, our regulation of the climate to what we believe it should be is in itself "climate change" and arguably unnatural. If most of the communication around this issue is driving existential crises within people - certainly my generation and younger - this drives paralysis and anxiety instead of hope and passion for innovation. I think education is the fundamental issue here because we have so many "holes" in our energy systems which we can work to patch thereby using each watt as efficiently as possible so we don't have to generate more and everyone can still live comfortably!
The carbon tax is too low. The graph that compares the carbon tax between countries does not show the “real” story. The “coverage” of the carbon tax is much more important. If the coverage of the tax is limited it doesn’t matter if the tax rate is high like in Uruguay (approximately 10% of domestic emissions).
this is true in the forest sector as well, at about 30-50 USD/TCO2E. What's crazy is that we shift the blame and the burden to the consumers rather than the mega companies. it's crazy.
not taxing China and other major polluters is the real mistake
@@MrLouisanalane either way cusumers always pay the price companies just add to their business cost and charge us for it. This however may be more fair than other ways.
@@gregmchale5011- It’s hard enough for ordinary consumers to make ends meet these days. Hiking carbon taxes is sheer insanity at this stage. Unless, of course, you want widespread unrest, which is where this is heading. The climate problem is an extremely gradual one, that will start to affect us over a timescale of multiple decades. Current “heat domes” are weather not climate.
Too low?! It’s $1.55 to $2.15 a litre ($5.80-$8.00 gal) in Canada for gas. We all can’t afford electric vehicles. Our utility bills like electric and natural gas is very high. The technology is advancing but we’re being punished because we’re too poor to afford to go green. I can’t afford a $7,000 car let alone a $25,000 car. Or to outfit my house with solar panels when our mortgage rates are sky high. It’s unfair and it’s HURTING us all!! Our mortgage went from $1,500 to over $2,000. So when I hear that the tax is too low it’s infuriating. Rebates don’t cover what the carbon tax did to our economy.
Stop subsidizing gas should be the first step here in USA
I think that we should focus on making alternatives economically feasible and cheap for lower and working class people to transition into clean and renewable energy.
big oil bois dont want it
@@rpgruli I know that. But activists and the government should make a sentence for people to embrace cleaner energy.
You speak of "we", but we have limited power to say what should be produced and what should not. What is absent from your phrase is the notion of "power".
Another is stop buying cheap ass products and making cheap ass housing. Making products and houses durable and easy to repair means less junk and no need to buy new stuff always.
the last piece of the puzzle is big fat batteries that last a lot
This “expert” actually said a Carbon Tax would help a country develop!
Making energy more expensive to poorer countries is quite literally how you kill 10s of millions of people. These countries still burn Lignite to survive.
We should send revenue from carbon taxes to invest in clean energy (nuclear) in these countries in exchange for their other natural resources like precious metals.
These countries don't have the infrastructure or enough qualified technicians to set up and deal with nuclear energy. And if you told them that in case of radiation from an accident, their livestock would die, and their families would develop strange cancers that their govt would try to cover up (like what has happened with every single accident), they might not be enthusiastic about nuclear energy.
I think the most CO2 intensive countries should start without caring too much about carbon taxes in poorer countries. Compare the absolute and per capita emissions of the e.g. USA and Nigeria. You‘ll find it made a significant impact if the USA would reduce its emissions, while reducing the emissions in Nigeria - for now - can be neglected.
When I have learned about carbon taxes, the idea has been a significant price for carbon emissions including imported goods AND paying back the total revenue to the people: deciding the revenue by the number of people from the baby to the grannies.
The numbers and some tests have shown, that for rich people this money will be peanuts, because they are spending much more money for much more things causing much more pollution. Poor people - with or without carbon tax - cause few emissions, because they can’t afford them anyhow, thus for people will get more money back than they have to spend for the additional tax - even if they don’t change their consumption behavior. I have been surprised, that - according to the report I have seen - that I would be probably in the balanced range or maybe even having a penny more. I think I have an average income.
Of course, some things we can buy today cheap will become much more expensive. I assume a trip by plane could be such a thing. But, those are the most climate damaging things and it is the target, that their consumption decreases.
No need to make a university exam to decide what is green washing. The price would guide you good enough.
Here in Germany the carbon price is ridiculous low - and nobody has ever said anything about paying the money to the people… 🙄
I live in Canada and I am on board with reducing GHG emissions but when there are zero alternative options to choose from that is where I have issues. For example I recently replace my furnace in my home. I live in the prairies where it is cold and the only affordable option is a natural gas furnace. It’s too cold and not cost effective for heat pumps or electric. The company I worked for had a house with electric base board heaters and one cold month the heating bill for the 1000 sqft house was over $2000. That is not an option for any Canadian.
I think there is a-lot to fix first before canada should have introduced a carbon tax. Most cities in canada have poor public transit and we build our city infrastructure for cars. We need to fix our philosophy on how we design and build city’s and provide alternatives to citizens and build out our electricity grid. The canadian government is too focused on the carbon tax as a silver bullet to carbon emissions and it is not.
well said
Agree
Very based. I also live on the praries, and I agree that heatpumps are just not a realistic option for many reasons. Even if we switched towards electric alternatives, we will still foot the bill with our provincial governments actively fighting against greener electricity, and we get hit with the carbon tax in our electricity bill. I wish that this would motivate change as intended, but Alberta and Saskatchewans Premiers are winning the misinformation campaign. Even if the federal government went on a marketing campaign to prove that yes, 8/10 Albertan families get more back compared to the taxes the paid, the majority would ignore the statistics and keep being rallied by Pierre's divide and conquer tactics. The direction we are headed in is unsustainable, and any hope of reducing the tax of electricty collapsed with the wind and solar moratorium and new regulations surrounding viewscapes, despite the very visible destruction we see with mines and deforresting. The blaming of wind for the grid alerts was also shamefull, as it was VERY evident the true cause was several Natural Gas plants failing, and just proves how deep this echo chamber goes.
@@TrueBlueKangaroo I think you should get you facts straight. Alberta has more wind and solar per capita than any other province in Canada and continues to build more. So to say they are fighting against green electricity is incorrect. Unfortunately solar and wind are not reliable. Solar and wind provide approximately 35% of the electrical capacity in the province of Alberta. When we we had the gird alerts only about 2% of this capacity was available. Yes when about 30% of you electrical system is not available the result is grid alerts.
I guess you have bought the Liberal propaganda that that 8/10 families are better off with the carbon tax rebate which is not true. I refer you to the Parliamentary Budget Officer report of March 24, 2024 which concludes that majority of the people pay more in carbon tax than they receive in rebates. The Trudeau Liberals only take into account the tax you pay on fuel and heating. They do not take into account the carbon tax on everything else you buy from groceries, clothes, furniture etc; Also you pay GST on top of the carbon tax.
Just dont live in canada
The political problem here in Canada seems to come from a general ignorance about what carbon pricing is, and how the vast majority of the people actually get more back in rebates than they pay in. This is largely fueled by misinformation spread through corporate media (owned by a handful of wealthy people) and then parroted online by people seemingly payed to push a certain narrative. Many of my fellow Canucks do claim to care greatly about climate change in polling, especially the young people but when it comes to actually changing their actual lifestyles. The support of many of those people seems to fade away. In other words... they are environmentalists only when times are good.
We had record wildfires last year here, and a fairly dry winter without a lot of snow leaving conditions primed for what is likely to be another bad summer. Focusing on the cost of disaster relief from inaction and the impact, especially on the poor could be another way. If a poor person loses their home to a wildfire. They are out out of luck and on the street. A rich person (that pollutes infinitely more) loses their home to wildfires or floods just moves into one of their other "investment properties." When the food prices go up because of worldwide droughts. The rich pay more, but they still eat. You as a poor person starve.
We here in Canada have experienced corporate profiteering in the food and energy sector (bringing in record profits) that has been blamed on the Carbon tax. This could be solved with a windfall profits tax on corporations that our current government seems reluctant to implement.
The misinformation in Canada is honestly some of the the worst I've ever seen. According to the internet, Canada is essentially a third world country because of the carbon taxes. High inflation is because of the carbon tax. Homelessness is because of the carbon tax. Affordability issues is because of the carbon tax. it's asinine.
A few points from a fellow Canadian.
1. Environmentalist when times are good? I think more accurately when it’s free and easy to be an environmentalist like my subsidized heat pump.
2. I think you underestimate how much many people hate the tax with some passion. They certainly don’t need to be paid to rant about it.
3. Rich or poor if your house burns down you rely on insurance to rebuild your house. If you don’t have insurance you can loose your mortgage and quickly after your house.
Additionally it’s an uphill effort to promote the functional merits of a carbon tax program considering the countries with highest current and or historical ghg intensities are not participating. The global map in the video shows how too few countries are engaged. It’s the ‘right thing to do’ doesn’t resonate with all voters particularly while food and housing costs are rising significantly - Maslow’s hierarchy. Despite the current Canadian government being voted in for their promise to act on Canada’s lagging climate policies, and in turn rolling out a reasonably functioning CT plan, it’s the CT program that may be the nail that sees the same government now voted out. Unfortunately many truly beneficial programs can not set-up and deliver within typical political election cycles.
@@p_zuc the current liberal government is on it’s 3rd term, can’t really blame the election cycle for not getting something done.
No matter what prices for goods are gonna go up. Force companies to be clean prices are passed to consumers, companies be dirty causing global prices go up because of supply and demand. No matter what prices are going up at least the carbon tax will pay the poor back incentivizing the companies to be richer by being cleaner to pay less tax.
This conservative crap getting rid of the cabin tax is all politics to get in power at the expensive of the regular person but wrecking the environment and causing more problems
Like I have asked before tell me a better solution that the conservative want to implement I will change my vote but they have not.
No mention of the Swedish regulation of stationary-source NOx emissions in the early 1990s, which could work equally well for CO2. Sweden was charging a few thousand dollars per ton while other countries were charging only a couple hundred, and nobody complained. Why? Because companies didn't pay the fee on _all_ of their emissions; they only paid for emissions in excess of the industry-average emission intensity rate. If the company's emission rate was better-than-average, their "fee" was negative (a rebate); they got paid for reducing their emissions. (Search for "Sweden refunded emission payments".)
Norway does something like that, I believe. with CO2.
@@unconventionalideas5683 24% of Norway's economy is based on oil and gas and 52% of their exports are oil and gas.
I'm not so sure. NOx is an unwanted byproduct of inefficient combustion so it's already unwanted and all Sweden did was make it even more unwanted.
CO2 is what is supposed to be created. Hydrocarbons in the fossil fuel burn with oxygen to form H2O and CO2.
I think trying to get the market to fix it is futile. The government should just bypass the market, put wealth taxes on the 1% and use that money to build state factories and impliment clean energy outside of the capitalist market.
Thank you for providing some mich needed pro and con context around carbon taxes.
Context that is always lost in political debates, as can be seen in the Canadian Parliament and other political bodies publicly debating this.
As citizens it is getting harder than ever to be informed and educated and you guys are doing a great job to provide comprehensive information.
In Canada I fail to see how the consumer carbon tax is supposed to meaningfully reduce emissions? They say it’s supposed to change behaviours by making things like gas more expensive but then tell us that all the money is refunded anyway?! For most of us in Canada we have no options but to drive to get to work, groceries, etc. unlike many European cities, ours were built very sprawled out subdivisions with no real public transit options. Not that anyone can afford an EV or like the charging infrastructure is in place! Our homes are heated with Natural gas, they say to switch to electric heat pumps but they are expensive and don’t work well in the colder parts of the country. We are in an affordability crisis, and most younger generations now rent cause houses are too expensive. Good luck getting your landlord to change out a gas furnace or do anything to Improve the house efficiency. I can see the Carbon tax being a tool if we had other options, but for the majority of Canadians, we have no viable alternatives. So it just becomes another tax we have to pay and does little to reduce emissions!
In Canada, I own a Leaf and Sienna. Because we drive the Leaf 95% of the time and Ontario has an amazing 2.8 cent kWh overnight price. The Leaf charge-ups are usually about $1.10. Combined with the van, the carbon rebate pay covers 100% of Leaf charges and 40% of the van fill-ups.
That said, carbon pricing does hit big users like farming and transportation systems - industrial winter heating, trains, trucks, taxis, and buses. Making these more expensive causes inflation. The carbon rebate does little to help that the cost of ground beef has gone up 40%.
people should not be eating ground beef. meat consumption kills.
And why do you think the price of ground beef is tied to the price of carbon?
Eating vegetables also kills many animals. You should not be proud to be vegan @@jollyjokress3852
The government has added a middleman to your transaction.
You have a civil servant punishing you for normal activities.
@@jollyjokress3852look up, this is how red meat works
it doesn't make clean energy cheaper, the issue is the energy consumption rate, unless something is done about that then nothing will change.
Telling people not to consume energy is not a solution.
Surely you mean the problem is a lack of efficiency, right?
Just dont consume energy bro @@Skyler827
If you put a carbon tax on gasoline, you cannot give it to poor people so they can buy more gas. That money would better be spent on public transportation (maybe almost free) and denser housing. I don’t think poor people are dying to maintain a personal auto.
poor people will prefer not to buy expensive taxed gasoline, the real problem is industries going out to somewhere with lower taxes.
Poor people buying gasoline is not the problem. Rich people buying 10 times or 100 times the gasoline is, As the carbon tax encourages investments in transportation systems that don't rely on fossil fuels, the poor will gravitate to those technologies too.
But you're correct that at least some of the revenue should go directly to better public transit.
@@ronvandereerden4714 I am not saying that private jets should be left alone. You can carbon-tax private jets and subsidize "dense airplanes" or intercity trains. Although private jets are more visible and annoying, large numbers do matter. Ratio of number of cars to private jets is 20,000. Fuel consumption ratio of jets to cars is 75. Those large numbers add up. Let's not use every opportunity as a wealth transfer mechanism.
Some allowance per citizen is also an option. Back in my country the city would charge you some low number for your first 30 tons of water. After 30 tons per person per month, the price would be 5x for additional water consumption.
@@chefnyc I don't consider it a wealth transfer. The poor can't afford to be put in the same boat as those who can choose options. It just keeps things closer to fair. Since you're pulling numbers out of a hat, the ratio of poor people driving cars to private jets is 200.
You cannot have gas guzzlers, unnecessary SUVs/pickups on the road, talk about CO2 emissions and then come back and try to make gas cheaper. If the gas is 30% more expensive, they will have to drive smaller cars and spend the same money on gas. Following are US numbers: 15,000 jets, 280MM cars, 24mpg auto, 4mpg private jet. So I stand corrected. Car dependent suburban sprawl is doing more damage than a few private jets.
According to economics, gas consumption is highly price inelastic. Meaning gas consumption doesn't change much even if price goes up a lot. Most people still need gas to get to work and the grocery store so they pay the higher cost. My guess is gas would have to go up to $6 or $7 a gallon, in the US, before gas or petrol consumption would start to fall at all in the US.
But it's a different story when you have more means of transportation, a lot of countries do not rely so much on cars for people to go to work. But if you have no alternative means of transport, tax is not gonna work
Likely untrue and not a problem anyway. While you are definitely right that gas prices would need to increase astronomically (right now, they're the cheapest in the world) before gas consumption stops entirely, that doesn't mean there isn't a significant impact from high prices. When gas prices go up, you see less driving overall, more acceptance of alternatives like EVs, and generally more willingness to explore energy alternatives. It makes the problem more present and personal. Plus... if raising the cost of ownership doesn't crater usage, that means more money that can then be redirected to infrastructure and supporting other alternatives.
Taxing cigarettes and nicotine didn't stop smoking outright - but it does give people pause, another reason to consider quitting, and a decent revenue stream to combat the problem from other avenues. Just because it's not the sole silver bullet solution doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
yes and no, like always poor people are affected the most in my country like always, ~50% of the price of fuel is tax only because of the pandemic they decreased the envirommental tax, the ISP (tax over fuel and energy) decreased from 70.7% to 60.1%.
Because of the war europeans decreased gas consumption by 10%.
As for now, gas is still very much needed for mobility and the fact that renewable energy is cheaper than ever hasn't stopped this, yet! But the future may very well be different. 🙌 For further discussion, check out our video
"Are we running out of oil" here 👉 ua-cam.com/video/fkrJ8gcHqQl/v-deo.html.
@@Cyrribrae I don't understand your correlation with taxes on cigarettes and nicotine to the carbon tax. I asked these questions, why are cigarette and nicotine inelastic? Because the consumer is addicted and there are very few alternatives. Why are products that produce carbon emissions inelastic? Because people have to eat food and live.
The concept that inelastic demand of a product doesn't actually cause the consumer to search for alternatives, otherwise it wouldn't be consider inelastic but elastic. In terms of a tax, this is entering the domain of a dead-weight loss to the market, this means the consumer will have less money for other things to purchase in other markets, an overall unbalanced market. If you're a Canadian, the is already happening in our market with the cost of living crisis. The most peaceful result of market change will be increased wages which defeats the purpose of the tax. At the most worst is gradual unrest among the population of which indicated in the video as to why politicians are generally hesitant in promoting such taxes.
If you really want a solution, you have to make carbon emitting products elastic. A tax doesn't do that.
Meanwhile in Canada the carbon tax does not force businesses to use less carbon. It forces them to pass on the extra expense of running a business down to the consumer in order to protect the all mighty stock price of publicly traded companies. We are paying carbon tax for ourselves as well as corporations. There is zero chance of ever receiving more money from the rebate than we pay in proxy unless we don't spend money on anything, including groceries. If the government thinks they can outsmart corporations they have to remember these are highly trained professionals who will get replaced by the shareholders in a heart beat if the stock price falls. Average citizens are the ones being hurt and having their lives destroyed over this massively failed social experiment. Call it what it is, just another way to take more money from us because this government has decided they are more qualified to spend our money than we are. Why do we need money anyways? The government should have at least 80% of each of our dollars made by the time we pay taxes on income as well as on everything else that costs money... Canadians are waking up to this farce and we will repair our country after this government is laughed out of parliament by the entire world.
There is no carbon tax on jet fuel in Canada. The video showing a jet flying implies that there is a carbon tax on jet fuel.
Issue in Canada is that they are trying a European solution. When you live in a country with 6 time zones, vast transportation is required. Also with a cold climate, heating is required. There is very little room to cut back. because of housing prices, many live more than an hour from work. It doesn't matter what the price is, the same amount of fuel will be consumed. some may say lets go EV but in this climate it's not actually feasible in the winter over longer distances. Same with heating, heat is required. our electrical grid has issues for heat pump use, as well these pumps stop functioning at low temps that are found for much of the winter in canada. Lastly, Canadians has some socialist tendencies, but also American thoughts. So giving money to other countries does not sit well.
The redistribution of the Carbon Tax in Canada is a completely bizarre concept. If you charge a carbon tax, all the revenue should go to programs that will lead to carbon neutral energy sources or decarbonization programs. For example, in Norway these funds are used for things like: Renewable Energy Investments; Energy Efficiency Programs; Subsidies for Electric Vehicles (EVs); Incentives for EV charging stations; Climate Research; etc.. The Canadian model is just being used to fund a completely unrelated program for the redistribution of wealth and buying votes for the party in power. It is embarrassing being a Canadian these days.
The home energy improvement plan , the EV subsidies, the land conservation programs are funded in party by the carbon tax.
@@Gordonz1 But are they???? The Trudeau Liberal government line is that 60% of the people receive more than they pay. If that is the case how can it also fund these other programs. Someone is not telling the truth.
@@Gordonz1 How can that be if the Liberal government is telling us that 60% of the people receive more than they pay????
The problem with the vast majority of carbon taxes are they make investing in reducing carbon harder to do! In my case, the carbon tax on my natural gas heating is over $1000/yr so instead of having that $1000 to replace an old single pane window, I have to pay the tax and due to income, I get little to no refund back. So instead of reducing carbon - the carbon tax here is more of a wealth redistribution scheme than an attempt to reduce carbon.
A better solution would be to have everyone's (including businesses) direct carbon tax payments (natural gas, gasoline, etc) into a fund for that person or business can access to invest in upgrades or repairs that will reduce CO2. For those who can't reduce any emissions they can trade them to those who can.
In Denmark, we do this partially. Personally, I would have liked to see more of it go this way.
Some of the ways to use the carbontax money are to subsidise ground heating pumps, insolating windows, insolating houses, investment in research at universities for better solutions, subsidising private solar panels, help funding reneeable energy and much more.
Yeah, it kinda assumes people are able to make long term financial decision and investments. Replacing the old stuff would be worth it because of the higher cost associated with the carbon tax, but some people that don't have the access to capital through savings or loans or family will be stuck paying allowances for the old polluting system, being unable to switch to the new, cleaner ones. It especially works that way with cars, buying a new electric car costs like 40k, and many people simply can't afford that. So they will be stuck paying carbon tax for fuel for their old car, making it even harder to save up for the switch to electric. That's why I think it might be better in some cases like the cars to put the carbon tax at the sale of the car, not the fuel. That way you would "pre pay" for the emissions during the whole expected lifecycle of the car at the point of sale, adding let's say $10 000 to the cost of new petrol cars, encouraging people to not buy new ones, and instead buy electric or hybrid when buying a new car. That way I think the transition would be more gradual, and not impact the poorest the most.
You admit to paying $1000 more per year in carbon tax. So then think ahead that it will get more expensive over time. Instead of complaining about it, be proactive, use subsidies and rebates and get a heat pump. We did and now we're paying less for heating and after 10 years, we'll actually be saving money. Same principal when switching to an electric car. It's around 10 times cheaper to drive an EV in Canada vs a gas car and in Europe it's around 4 times. Simple math. People just need to stop complaining and get moving.
@@SwissSchweiz Proactive actions like that cost money, money I do not have because in part, I am paying a carbon tax. I’d love nothing more than to put that money towards affordable upgrades that reduce carbon but instead I must send them to the tax man.
Secondly heat pumps do not currently work at -40 in a province which gets brown outs from power shortages when wind & solar don’t generate which the past two cold snaps was exactly what happened.
Also with power prices here, switching to a heat pump would cost me MORE than natural gas because we do not have reliable renewable energy & all natural gas/coal power generation gets carbon taxed! So I’d still be paying carbon taxes with a heat pump.
As for EV’s there is just not any affordable ones available with the range I need to drive. I need one that can do 500km when new so that after the battery degrades I can still do 300km round trips with adequate safety margins in winter. The only ones with that sort of range are $50-90k if you can even find one in stock… and I just can’t even imagine affording 2 EV’s that between them would have monthly payments as much (or more) than my monthly mortgage payment!
I am a Canadian living in northern British Columbia who can first hand say the carbon tax has done nothing but hurt middle and lower class Canadians. Nobody wants to pollute anymore than they have too. But to be taxed to heat your home or take your children to school, this is just ridiculous. I live in a small town where public transit is basically non existent and the nearest major city is a 16 hour drive away. The idea of no pollution is great until you realize your sick family member needs to go see a medical specialist and it’s 16 hour drive or 1.5 hour flight away. Whether you like it or not where lots of Canadians live with our technology and northern temperatures you cannot get to the doctor without burning fossil fuels. And to be taxed on it when people need it the most is just absurd. You could say move to the city where the proper medical staff is equipped, but let’s be honest no “middle class” person could afford to live in Vancouver. But don’t worry the people who can flex their tesla will get a rebate.
In Canada. Taxing all our money-making businesses to the point they can't compete and redistributing the wealth is ridiculous. Incentivise. Our horrible prime minister is probably the most hated in history. He has doubled our country's debt, and he is killing our business.
Agree
Low carbon taxes cause more pollution. Studies have backed up that when people have a sense they are already paying for carbon, they are less likely to choose environmentally friendly items. Small examples of this is when people are charged a few cents per plastic bag at a grocery store, it actually reduces the percent of people that use reusable bags since people have a sense it's OK to use plastic at that point.
If all these countries have been implementing a carbon tax or ETS then why is global emissions still increasing at the same rate as before? Shouldn't the tax be proportional to the biggest polluters? These policies only compare carbon emitters in the same country but this is a global problem. A better way of looking at this is proportionally taxing the highest global polluters. Why put a $80 per ton tax on Canadians if we contribute to less than 2% of global emissions
In Canada, the carbon tax is an extremely controversial issue politically. At the same time, a lot of people don’t understand it as it has been poorly explained to the populace, thus making it an easy target for groups who oppose it.
The government can’t explain it because it is a shit policy.
Or explain why someone in a nursing home who hasn’t driven for 7 years and has millions in assets gets the same rebate that the family of 4 with two vehicles and 4 mouths to feed does.
@@Buckshot99 If you understand carbon pricing, that’s easy to answer. What is the nursing home resident’s carbon footprint compared to the family of four? The amount of the rebate that someone holds on to is a function of how much someone emits, not how much they have in the bank.
@@john15008 you are taking money from a family and giving it to someone who doesn't need it. You make the family poorer.
@@Buckshot99 Again, you seem to misunderstand carbon pricing. Not all families are the same. It all depends on how much carbon dioxide that family emits. Think of it as givers and receivers. With rebates, if the family endeavours to keep their emissions low, they will be net receivers and come out ahead financially. If they don’t care how much they pollute and use fossil fuel derived energy like crazy, they will be net givers.
There needs to be a carbon tax because right now pollution is free! Anyone can emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to their heart's content and literally everyone else has to pay the price. We need to flip that equation around, those who pollute need to be the ones facing the consequences.
The biggest mistake we've ever done was move away from nuclear energy. It should be utilized in collaboration with other energy sources all over the place by now. Especially since so many things around it have advanced. Our knowledge of safety measures are much better understood. Also Capabilities in engineering, material science, technology, robotics, etc. are much more advanced now. We need to improve our environment by lowering emissions. The only things holding us back is past trauma instilled in people (which is understandable but we gotta give it a chance to prove we can do so much better) Did they outlaw electricity or oil, coal when things went wrong in the early days of those fields? No! They kept going and understood things usually are bumpy and difficult in the beginning and kept going even tho those sources negatively impact our environment and health a million times more than nuclear energy options ever could. Yet governments and Legal procedures BLOCK any sort of progression from happening. We'd be lucky to see even the slightest projects approved and finished with-in the next 100 years.. It's very annoying to see how much we have gotten in our own way when it comes to improving or advancing certain things. Instead we let fear, money, man made "required legal processes" Stop us from doing anything other than wind, solar, oil, natural gas, damming our rivers, mining for minerals... It's very frustrating because we should be able to use all these options in collaboration. If we actually wanted to improve anything. That's what we need to do and stop letting so much potential get blocked from ever occurring in the first place.. It's really irritating. I wish certain people didn't make this so "complicated and difficult" Why would any reasonable person want to block progression?
the cheapest and cleanest source of energy is hydro and Canada has a lot of undeveloped hydro. We do not need a lot of new dams, we need to make our existing dams more efficient. Use the same water multiple times by piping the water below the dam back up to be recycled using pipes and the natural energy of water flow.
The reason why emissions are going down in BC isn't carbon tax, it's vehicles becoming more efficient, more hybrids, and more EVs.
Ofcourse taxes and tariffs are the solution to everything
I live in Newfoundland Canada where we have very limited choices in terms of heating or vehicle fuels. Natural gas is not available, only heating oil and electricity. My town does not have public transportation and the distances to neighbouring towns mandate the use of a personal vehicle every time. In early 2024, Newfoundland has very few EV charging stations and uptake on EVs is negligible. The Carbon tax is nonetheless applied across the country without taking into account the aforementioned disadvantages in Newfoundland. We, as consumers do not have the ability to choose green energy for our vehicles which makes the Carbon Tax onerous and unfair in my opinion. The Government should have first implemented green energy choices in our province and established solar or wind options for us to invest in. Instead, the government has chosen a punitive taxation mechanism working alongside existing high taxation and inflation on almost all other aspects of life. They have also made no attempt to reduce the percentage of goods being transported nationwide by diesel trucks - at this time 75% of goods are transported by diesel trucks which assuredly adds to the cost of all those goods (groceries, consumer products, delivery services and fees). The rebate is heralded as a bonus for all of us but, when it arrives, it is swallowed up with one trip to the grocery store. I would much prefer an incentive based system with readily available green choices instead of punishment and would also prefer to see other tax rates reduced instead of a rebate - instead, the government is also RAISING those other tax rates. Underlying all of this; Canada's global emissions amount to 1.6% of the totals and it seems our pain is not worth the measly reduction in emissions so far (circa 2% of our 1.6%). Carbon taxation without additional effort from the government seems like a lazy approach with miniscule results. In Canada it will result in this government losing the next election.
Two issues. Conservation doesn’t appear to be part of your formulation of this issue. Not all ICE engines use the same amount of fuel. Secondly, Canada may produce “only” 1.6% of global emissions but it only has about 0.7% of the planet’s population. What precedent would that set if Canada didn’t take emission reductions seriously?
1 tipping point can put Eastern Canada and Europe into an ice age. Why?
The fresh water from Greenland can stop the Gulf Stream.
The current has slowed down and is expected to stop within 5 to 100 years.
That is not the only tipping point. People just think our ecosystem isn’t that delicate and how much harm could a few degrees make.
We're going to jack your gas and heating bills to force you to use clean energy. So please get an electric vehicle that is over $50,000 that won't withstand the cold and swap out your furnace for a heat pump (which youre on the hook for btw) that won't effectively heat your house. Solved!
Burning plant material isn't the same as burning coal and oil. One could argue coal and oil are plant material but they still hold an important difference: coal and oil are fossil fuels while wood, charcoal and some plant based fuels aren't. Fossil fuels result from processes that took millions of years and, therefore, they represent carbon that was trapped for, also, millions of years. If I plant a tree and then make it into wood to fuel my fireplace, the carbon released is the same (or less) amount of carbon the tree captured while it grew. Burning wood or ethanol is completely different than burning coal and oil.
So if you have lots of money you can pollute as much as you want, that doesn/t seem fair.
I'm Canadian, and I think the biggest issue is that people still have no idea how much they contribute to GHG. It should have started with annual reporting added to our tax forms, then rebates could've been targeted and success measured.
Now it's an inevitable tax and we just see the government as taking. And don't see the reduction.
Subsidies for the fossil fuel companys still outweigh carbon taxes. So taxes make no sense if you don't stop the subsidies.
Government makes BILLIONS on oil and gas so that's why they give subsidies. It's a return on investment
I live In Denmark and our carbon taxes are braindead stupid. Etc. The taxes on electricity, fossil fuels and so forth, many which are 150% does not go towards nature restoration but instead healthcare & mainly just bureaucracy(cold hands).
Yes. You might argue that it is indirectly effective, reducing the consumers usage of fossil fuels etc. And also that more healthcare as a result of taxes based on fossil fuels kind of acts as a repair for something negative.
It's not a sustainable solution, as it doenst entirely promote carbon neutral solutions or even support environmental friendly companies.
It's just a penalty and a poor excuse for more taxes to help greenwash the politicians marketing campaign.
Although I do believe the the government's and companies are getting better, more conscious and informed, working together, and getting more sustainable by the day.
A very good video. I congratulate you on it's clarity.
Carbon tax doesn't work in Canada on an individual level, maybe for corporations it has an effect. The only real effect is its strong signalling from the government pollution will get further punished in the future, so those that consumers with long term thinking will avoid products that pollute if possible. The rest of it is just income redistribution, as the tax isn't producing alternative options for consumers to reduce their emissions. It would be much better implemented if the tax was kept by the government to provide tax rebates for heat pumps, led lights, etc, and larger infrastructure projects to put trains everywhere connecting the Great Lakes and Cascadia regions integrated with the US, as well as the Trans-Canada passenger railway.
It's a chicken or egg situation though. Canadians won't consider living more densely, walking, biking, using public transit, considering decarbonization when making purchases without the tax.
With the tax in place these considerations appear and decarbonization becomes part of the zeitgeist. Suddenly the political will for big climate friendly actions, such as major investments in low carbon transportation and housing become the reality.
In a democracy the government can't force us to live a low carbon lifestyle unless we also want that lifestyle.
The corollary of that is that we won't get the public investments required to change our way of living unless we continue to signal to our represented leaders that we're willing to take our medicine and do the hard work of decarbonizing our ways of living.
@@blorpblorpblorp that's a great point. One day hopefully we get there, now it feels like needless suffering.
Canadians have been resistant when it comes to Carbon pricing. Many in Canada pollute pretty much the same as they always did, and complain about it costing more. Rather than changing their pollution habits.
the best way to allocate the money from the carbon tax is to give back to those who are affected by the pollution (let's say 10% of the carbon tax is derived from additional health issues caused by the extra pollution, then 10% of the money collected should goes toward treating those health issues)
The rebates will incentivized ppl to pollute the more they pollute the more money they get in rebates. Problem is tax not connected with incentives and keep ppl from getting resources to acquire green products
The price of emissions allowances in the EU today is about 60 EUR/t CO2. One year ago, the price was 100 EUR/t CO2. This is a very unstable and unpredictable base to calculate the return on invest. This and the volatile price of fossil fuels are reasons, why this principle does not work in real world as expected.
Keep the tax, it allowed us to buy a car, now we get 20 free fill ups per year. Wonderful helped us our greatly
It may seem odd that the average voter would oppose a carbon tax, considering that the wealthiest 1% emit twice as much carbon as the poorest 50% of the global population. Redirecting the revenue from this tax to lower-income households could result in an increase in their income. Although the disparity may not be as pronounced within individual countries as it is globally, it is primarily those with the financial means to emit who would bear the cost of a carbon tax.
I think replacing the Value Added Tax with a Carbon Added Tax is a good idea. But we should do so on ALL emissions, not just looking at the emissions from the biggest installations (like the ETS).
An interesting side effect would be that gasoline would get a bit cheaper, as stated in 6:50 1 ton of CO2 per 4000km driving, and they recommend about 150 euro per ton, so 0.0375 euro per km, that is less than what you currently pay in excise duties and VAT (about 1 euro per liter at 20km/l that is 0.05 per km)
There are two relevant questions: Should we tax before or after burning the fossil fuels and should we set the price of burning carbon or rather cap the amount of burned carbon?
One of the best and easiest ways to reduce heating needs, lower monthly costs and slash carbon emissions is thin film plastic on all windows and invest in beefing up insulation. When highly insulated then we can heat and power our homes with low cost and distrbuted renewables in every region 🇨🇦.
polluting shouldnt be free? How is energy free?
All that is going to achieve is making things more expensive.
5-15% reduction in emissions in 7 years is not significantly more than 0-2% PER YEAR. It's just that the system in BC has been there longer. That seems like a fairly significant impact on emissions to me.. no?
Can’t wait for it to be voted out in the next election in Canada.
The problem in Canada is that PP (the conservative leader) sees the political advantage in telling Canadians they don't have to do their share.
The carbon tax sounds all well and good but at least in Canada, there is no widely available alternative to carbon based fuels yet. No electric or hydrogen trucks, trains, tractors or other heavy equipment. Options for cars fare a bit better but the availability and pricing is nowhere near where it needs to be to allow the average consumer to buy electric (and that's not even bringing into consideration whether or not they can have a private charger which is almost certainly a requirement). Most homes are heated by natural gas because that is how developments and new homes are hooked up for heating. Sure you have heat pumps or electric forced air but that is not cheap to swap out. I'm in the process of buying a pre-construction townhome and i don't think I have even been given an option for electric heating. For most people, continuing to use the equipment they have is the only option. My point is, the carbon tax would be fair if there were options that could easily and cheaply be selected but there are not that many options if any for certain pollution sources, and this means most people are just forced to pay more to live for seemingly no reason. This creates a lot of resentment and rightfully so.
In Canada the carbon tax is used as a political slush fund for favored constituencies. The tax does not remove a single molecule of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. More practical solutions such as bio sequestration, energy efficiency, and renewable energy are not promoted because far left politicians prefer a perpetual issue to push on their poorly educated base over actually solving the problem. For example, in Manitoba 98% of the electricity comes from renewable hydro. The cost of building the latest hydro dam is $13B +/-. Manitoba exports clean hydro power. The far left federal government spent $500B on handouts for people sitting at home doing nothing while the same expenditure could have built about 40 hydro project equivalents. Canada could be carbon neutral if every resident planted 2000 trees and at $1 per sapling the cost would be less than the carbon tax. In 9 years the far left government has planted less than 1 million. The so called environmentalist don't want to feel morally superior, but don't want to get their hands dirty.
I prefer to plant trees. They are missing all over the world, year by year. I'm tired of taxes, for sugar products, co2 etc. It looks like a business not a fight for a better life. Wealthy people don't care about pollution, they drive 5l engines, take private jets, yachts etc. The most of the people can almost afford a car, not because they want it but because they need it for work for family etc. And these idiots come with taxes to make their life even worse. There is no day dedicating to planting trees. We should declare an international trees planting, and all of us to plant 2-3 trees every year. We need an hour. That tree could be bought from our own taxes. Who doesn't participate, to pay more taxes in the coming year.
Trees do nothing for carbon capture. The carbon that we are putting in the atmosphere is coming from below ground, not from woods. Trees have a lifecycle of 40-50 years, once they die, that carbon goes back to the atmosphere (some of it under the form of methane, making things even worse). Therefore, "planting more trees" is near to useless. Either you find a cheap way to capture CO2 from the air and store it geologically, or you just keep it in the ground.
I think there should be a carbon sales tax and dividend. This would solve the issue of companies leaving since it doesn't matter where they're set up for the tax. And while sales taxes are generally regressive, having a dividend (aka UBI) would make it actually progressive
In Europe there have always been high taxes on fuel. Carbon tax is just a new buzzword to add more tax on the same products.
High fuel prices have never stopped traffic. They have made Europeans drive more efficient cars then Northern Americans.
Then isn't that proof that it works?
It seems like the Emission Trading Scheme in the EU might be starting to finally show results. It got to about 60EUR in the last few years, up from about 20EUR in the previous decade. Here in Czech republic we were having long discussing when to shut down our coal power plants, whether in 2038 or 2033, and now it seems they might be shutting down in a year or two because the cost of the allowances made them unprofitable. Which also means that everyone is now frantically trying to quickly find replacements, sadly mostly gas given the short timeframe.
bottom line, it's just another way for gov't to justify taking more money from the people.
Canadian and no, the carbon tax is nothing short of a disaster. First, you need viable green substitutes which our climate and geography don’t allow. Second, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage to the US which has no c tax. Finally, the evidence of effectiveness is thin. Most reports I have seen are long in projection. I suspect that the Canadian carbon tax will have a limited life with 2025 bringing a new regime.
Great explainer. I agree that some
portion of carbon taxes should be redirected to UNFCCC adaptation and loss and damage funds, currently much underfunded. I like the idea of rebates, but surely these rebates should just go to the poor and working class, with inequality at an all-time high. I’ve never understood why carbon taxes don’t go directly into mitigating the equivalent amount of carbon emitted, for example through reforestation and energy efficiency projects, and mass transit development - or even twice the amount, so that we can start drawing down on already dangerous levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Truly what we need is a once-off global wealth tax, or jubilee, on the worlds richest 800 individuals, to pay for the green transition and to level the playing field. And after that, to insulate politicians from the corrupting influence of corporations and the wealthy, all of whom have an outsized carbon footprint.
A carbon tax can 100% solve the problem of climate change. It is the simplest and most effective way to get anything done, it's called capitalism! When its expensive to pollute, people will not pollute. It is tough when your country is taking this required step in the right direction and others are not. It can seem unfair. But when people start taking these painful but required steps, others will start to follow. Climate change is a very easy to solve problem, incredibly easy. Just make it expensive to pollute. I live in Canada and work in the oil industry and support the climate tax; it makes me proud to be Canadian. Our PM might be unpopular to many in the country. As the video points out it is very politically dangerous to take this required and effective step, it just makes me respect him more. Any conservative slug can suck the tit of big business and do well politically, it takes real courage to make a change.
In my state of Colorado, the fossil fuel companies are paying education, healthcare and others. At some point the public does not want the fossil fule companies to stop funding them. Inadvertently the public is invested in Fossil fuels. This needs to stop. Renewables have come down as you point out. Fossil fuels are holding the loss of educational funding over the publics head.
amazing how much of the problem is rooted in public ignorance and political selfishness
p.s. and corruption.
..and laziness on the part of the government. They need to do more to motivate people and provide green alternatives; not just take their money.
What happened to plant more trees?
Trees help reduce carbon dioxide levels. 🌲 But trees alone cannot sequester enough emissions to save the climate. Nor should investing in reforestation become an enabler for more and more deforestation. So many species and entire ecosystems depend on ancient trees plus that new forests only absorb part of the emissions that are released when forests are felled.
Carbon taxes should be directed to cheaper renewables.
The fundamental problem with the carbon tax is that it is based on the 'good faith' presumption.
It works well in more 'honest' nations (like Sweden), but take uber-capitalist nations like the US, they are pretty much a failure.
This is largely because such nations use the 'tax' as a 'share'/'stock' and then do weird things with it, like trade it, offload it, exchange it, use it as 'derivatives' etc, whence it pretty much loses all its value & even original intent...Couple that with a 'selfish' society and a cut-throat ambitious & competitive political scenario, and you have a recipe for disaster...where one is (self)deluded into believing that the 'carbon tax' is doing good, instead of the truth, that it is it's merely a tool to be used by the rich to grow richer & degrade the environment even more........
If only they knew how toxic the carbon tax debate as gotten in Canada
I used to believe an carbon tax would not work since big oil in Canada would fight it tooth and nail sadly.
Paradoxically, the oil industry in Canada embraced the carbon tax when Alberta introduced it provincially.
Canadians will go on strike on April 1st to axe the tax. Some might call it civil unrest. We are in an recession. Food is expensive. AXE THE TAX!
Ya I do get the Canadian Carbon Rebate & as the cheapest best way to curb carbon use I'm all for it.
Does it drive up the cost of living, by comparison to the price gouging, increased profit margins, Corporate Bonus's & Stockholder Returns going on at Walmart, The Petro Giants & the Grocery Chains not even a little bit
Climate change requires science, technology and innovation. Instead of punishing people with more taxes, provide people with affordable clean alternatives. Intelligent people know that science, technology and innovation is the answer to climate change not taxes. Taxes are the go to of the intellectually lazy. Make the better alternative affordable and you will succeed. Punish your citizens and you will fail. Taxes have been, are and always will be inflationary. I live in Canada, and right now there is a movement chanting 'Axe the Tax' and it is gaining traction. A growing number of Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, many waiting in line at food banks for a meal and living in tents or cars. You want to get people on board, give them an affordable clean alternative, taxing them is punitive and it only alienates people who are trying to meet the rent and eat.
Another possible solution to make a carbon tax palatable to the public is a carbon dividend. The money raised from the tax gets distributed in a flat amount to everyone. For the people who contribute least to emissions, they can end up breaking even or in the black. The wealthy, meanwhile, can easily take the hit and have an incentive to pollute less (whether that’s riding their private jet less or investing in energy efficiency in their business is up to them). And economy-wide, there will be that desired price signal to emit less. Invest your carbon dividend in insulation, and next year you’ll save even more, etc.
There may be a need for special cases for the odd case of low-income people with necessarily high footprints. (Small farmers, for example, may need exemptions/discounts since they’re generally not flush with cash but could have a high carbon footprint than most people in their income bracket). But I think for a lot of people, the carbon dividend could be as anticipated as expected tax returns are in the US.
This is exactly how Canada's system works.
Disinformation and climate change denial amongst the far right is still a major issue hampering our efforts.
The vast majority of citizens are either disinterested in understanding how the carbon rebate works, or dumb... or both, and right wing populist politicians have seized on the opportunity to sow discord and spread falsehoods for their own benefit.
Canada gives a flat rebate to everyone and it is still widely unpopular.
How many people do you think own private jets? In Canada 250k a year gets you in the top 1% of earners but that doesn’t get you a jet. I’m all for taxing the Uber rich but that’s a fraction of a percentage of Canadians and it won’t change much.
Taxing carbon is not enough. We need to tax greenhouse gas emissions in proportion of their GWP. Let's tax CFC and methane too.
In Canada the Carbon Tax takes money from local economies. This is just bad government.
8:31 Justin Trudeau: Tell me more about that 🤣
the only reason the UK carbon emissions went down is they shut down many coal plants shut down the mines thousands lost jobs.
The Carbon Tax in Canada will be gone after the next election if there is a change of government. Whether you like it or not, the Carbon Tax has been very misunderstood here from the being. It is now seen as an affordability issue by many people in Canada. Had the government used the Carbon tax to replace an existing tax ( like sales or income tax), then it would be a different story.
gigantic scam
Reimbursement has to be visible to the populous and low cost to manage. If not, political opportunism trumps the future of life on the planet.
I’m Canadian and how we are doing it is waiting until the next election and scrapping the whole carbon scheme hopefully. The environment is changing yes are humans a driving factor sure but it’s changing the way we relate to the world so much quicker than a tax can ever hope to change.
The Carbon Tax is crucial for decarbonising the Energy from the Economy.
Why isn't Germany highlighted as having a carbon tax?
We do have a CO2 tax by now, haven't we?
Plus we've been having the "environmental tax" on fuel for a long time, which basically is a carbon tax, isn't it?
Hey there! Germany has the a law called the Brennstoff-Emissionshandelsgesetz, the BEHG. But as stated in the name, it's an emissions trading system (ETS), not a carbon tax per se. You can hear more about ETS from 4:58 onwards in the video!
@@DWPlanetA
Thank you for the reply!
I think its fair that politing companies have to pay for their polution
Relying on capitalism to solve its carbon emissions problem by applying pressure with a carbon tax has led to such innovations as: purchasing opposition politicians who run on the platform of repealing the carbon tax.
Why is India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan or China did not think of Child/Human tax to address their population explosion? We may not be here with Carbon tax, if population explosion would have been arrested better.
Hmmh that sounds quite unethical but also, probably unpractical. We have a video just for this topic 👇
"Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?"
ua-cam.com/video/kUL-q7ptDW4/v-deo.html
How much of carbon tax does Trudeau pay
He is the biggest carbon footprint of all us Canadian people.
Developed countries have already emitted a lot of green house gases while countries like India have emitted much less GHGs and per capita emissions are also pretty low as compared to global average, and imposing tariffs will restrict India's industrial growth. While India lags in the manufacturing sector.
Yeah you're absolutely right about that one...Maybe the idea of compensation would therefore be very fair. Did you already see this piece from us? 👇
"Climate damage: How and why rich countries should pay up"
ua-cam.com/video/KGOvRn5_QRg/v-deo.html
Or maybe we need degrowth - where Global North and Global South could meet somewhere half way? 👇
"What if we stopped making so much stuff?"
ua-cam.com/video/_22mKe_OLsg/v-deo.html
In Canada, the carbon tax has, unfairly, taken the blame for the huge amount of inflation we've had since the peak of the COVID pandemic. The actual impact of the carbon tax has been tiny compared to the inflation caused by other factors but, thanks to populist politicians, people just don't believe the facts which show that.
Or some people believe whatever the government tells them.
The carbon tax should be equivalent to the money required to produce oxygen
Ah I gotta disagree that a carbon tax actually does anything to make green tech cheaper. Increasing the cost of coal, oil and gas has zero effect on the cost of lithium and cobalt, and in fact may increase the cost of many green tech that rely on fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing or transportation
Let's say you are a company that has to pay this kind of tax, you may want to change and invest in new tech that doesn't generate co2 to avoid those payments but because you have to pay it the cash flow of the company is not enough to afford that transition. In order for this to work there has to be tax breaks for the ones who want to invest in change
The carbon tax rollout in Canada has been a mess. Chances are it won't survive the next election.
Some provinces get very minimal rebates so it's not a consistent program across the country
Wind is not the answer.
I think that the carbon tax is important but would need to be implemented properly to be effective. I think using the funding to decrease taxes elsewhere would be good but shouldn’t be the only use of the money. I think a majority of the tax collected should go towards subsidies for fund green projects and ways to make renewable energy so affordable that people would feel foolish for picking any other option. I also think having the tax revenue going to cleaning up damages done to developing and underdeveloped nations would be beneficial but I don’t think it would be unrealistic to expect most developed countries to agree on funding these cleanup efforts. I think the outcome with the most likelihood of happening and would have the best long term effect would be funding green projects and improving renewable energy.
Agreed. I would like to see the money collected go directly into building the infrastructure for green energy vehicles (HFC and EVs) and public transit systems that use clean energy. So far, in Canada, there is really no sign of this happening. Why take the money in the form of a tax and then simply hand it back again? It is that pointless exercise that makes me feel the Carbon Tax is ill conceived and surely consumes resources to administer the process.
@@SnowHarp agreed, another thing I think should be considered in addition to what I said prior is subsidize researching how to improve upon any negative impacts in the production of renewable energy and infrastructure.
Using a carbon tax might be a way to reduce inflation and interest rates by shifting the burden from the monetary side to the fiscal side. Relieving pressure on housing and the cost of green tech. It would drive business and lower the cost of living!
Cars are on their way out everybody’s buying motorcycles.😅
That's not true at all. Maybe in small countries
Canada should produce LNG massively to provide countries burning coal. Help the big polluting countries lower emissions. Taxing Canadians won't change anything. I ask every Canadians to participate in the axe the tax rally that will happen on the 1st of april from coast to coast. Canadians have had enough of this nonsense.
10:55 What we should make more appealing is acting fast against climate catastrophe. We should realize that the costs of climate change will only increase the longer we wait. The fact is, what climate scientists have underlined for a long time, is that we need a massive social-economical transformation that ... NOW. There are enough proposals by scientists that suggest how we could fund climate mitigation policies to stay in line with out goals; we have the material and financial resources, but only lack political will because this transformation inherently questions and undermines our current system of power and hegemony, which is why so many actors block political progress, simply because they hold onto their literally bloody richess. Not just do we have the necessary resources for a just transition, but the costs WILL increase the more time passes which will make the whole transition even more painful. And we need to recognize that a transition towards a sustainable society (not just economy) will INEVITABLY be costly and painful, a price we have to pay, i.e., purposefully stagnating growth or even commit to degrowth, which only a minority is willing to pay, while the majority tragically slumbers thanks to either ignorance or greed. If we want to avoid the hardests and most catastrophic impacts of climate change, then we have to pay this price. There is simply no other way in this short time now. Saying this is not simply ideology or belief, as I'm only referencing suggestions from science. If you want to motivate and make environmental policies appealing to the masses, then the best way is to make everyone understand what is at stake, which is hardly the case right now. A start is to read the latests IPCC report summaries and people will begin to get a finer picture of our dire situation and, more importantly, the urgency to act NOW. The world would truly be a much better place if people had access scientific literature and knew how to inform themselves and navigate it, instead of using media and social networks that only (re)produce simplistic views, biases, and untruths on topics that are socially incredibly important and where scientific understanding is fundamentally key to grasp an issue.
We should tax people who have children with people in high energy countries paying the most.
in Canada, the government straight up lie saying 8 out of 10 canadians are better of with the carbon tax rebates, when the truth is, according to the Budget Officer, when you add the direct and indirect costs of the consumers carbon tax, most people are net negative after the rebates. According to his report, it generates economic slowdown, massive layoffs, cost of doing business increase that will lead to increase of poverty in the country.