brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Thank you for posting this, pickupyourwill! This is good stuff. And ,wow!, Naomi Kline and Bill McKibben on the same panel. Excellent!
One of the things Kline say here (and McKibben agrees with) that is going to be tough is to get us privileged first world folks to see that the burden of change it going to be on us. The biggest changes will have to come from us. We are, after all, the main culprits of climate change/ global warming. This is going to be a tough obstacle but the choice is clear- cut back on our carbon output or make the next generations (and other life forms, of course, pay in huge and very miserable ways.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, Reuters is corporate news. Do we really expect them to support a new green deal to lower carbon emissions? Hardly.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, Reuters is corporate news. Do we really expect them to support a new green deal to lower carbon emissions? Hardly.
It was a news article, not an opinion piece. But whatever. I guess its best to just post from the huff compost...
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, Reuters is corporate news. Do we really expect them to support a new green deal to lower carbon emissions? Hardly.
It was a news article, not an opinion piece. But whatever. I guess its best to just post from the huff compost...
Sorry, got a bit off topic there- we have other thread about news media.
In any case, I meant no offense. But I do get very defensive of the planet.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yes, we do know what to do to reverse course -- and it's all drastic. The top three things alone -- who's going to do this? 1. Stop having babies 2. Stop eating meat and processed food 3. Stop driving and flying; turn the lights (and everything else) off.
To have any impact at all, we need to drastically restructure every part of the way we live. We know we are not going to reuse and recycle our way out. Reduce everything. But starting with the amount of people on the planet, nobody will even talk about over-population as an issue because it's incomprehensible that we could control reproduction at the level it's needed.
I work with young adolescents -- our supposedly woke generation on climate change -- and have this conversation all the time. As soon as I throw out the first example of what they personally could REDUCE (their constantly upgraded and supposedly reused and recycled -- ya right -- electronics), the cries of "Nooooooo" begin. "But we need them for emergencies. But my games help me relax. But . . . but . . . but."
We're pretty much doomed. The only thing left to know is whether it's an immediate mass catastrophe or a slow, drawn-out burn that kills us all. I've become a complete nihilist in my thinking on this issue. Not a position I want to take, but I have no faith in humanity to understand the seriousness of the crisis we're in, to prevent anything. For the most part, we are a reactionary, self-serving species.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
Yes, we do know what to do to reverse course -- and it's all drastic. The top three things alone -- who's going to do this? 1. Stop having babies 2. Stop eating meat and processed food 3. Stop driving and flying; turn the lights (and everything else) off.
To have any impact at all, we need to drastically restructure every part of the way we live. We know we are not going to reuse and recycle our way out. Reduce everything. But starting with the amount of people on the planet, nobody will even talk about over-population as an issue because it's incomprehensible that we could control reproduction at the level it's needed.
I work with young adolescents -- our supposedly woke generation on climate change -- and have this conversation all the time. As soon as I throw out the first example of what they personally could REDUCE (their constantly upgraded and supposedly reused and recycled -- ya right -- electronics), the cries of "Nooooooo" begin. "But we need them for emergencies. But my games help me relax. But . . . but . . . but."
We're pretty much doomed. The only thing left to know is whether it's an immediate mass catastrophe or a slow, drawn-out burn that kills us all. I've become a complete nihilist in my thinking on this issue. Not a position I want to take, but I have no faith in humanity to understand the seriousness of the crisis we're in, to prevent anything. For the most part, we are a reactionary, self-serving species.
I agree with all of this. I'll talk about overpopulation any day of the week but you're right, most people seem to avoid that one like the plague. And it's our biggest problem!
I also do not see people getting rid of their electronic devices- I'm not going to, are you? But why would we need to if the world population were a reasonable and stable number like maybe 500 million to one billion? Paul Ehrlich is more generous- he believe the optimum human population is between 1.5 to 2 billion. We are now close to 7.8 billion and in not too many years will hit 10 billion.
As far as having faith that humanity will change enough to avoid catastrophe- be it quick and disastrous or slow and painful- I also have very little.
But I still think it makes sense to try anyway, for a couple of reasons. First, because of the concept of hope being not the conviction that things will turn out well but rather the conviction to do what makes sense not matter how things turn out. Also, I don't believe we humans will completely wipe ourselves out. Although in many ways we are too clever for our own good, we are clever enough such that some vestiges of humanity will last for a long time. I think we will be one of the last animal species standing, but very likely in small, isolated numbers. Between now and then, many humans will suffer. The more we do to slow climate change, reduce pollution, etc., the less suffering will result. That's my pragmatic take on things though, yes, I think we are headed for collapse and suffering.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
She so right on here. It's true, we've know about this since the 70's. It's really weird that the US (I can only speak for my country) is not hitting this problem hard the way ( as Ms Ocasio-Cortez put it) we worked fervently to deal with the Great Depression or othe issues. It's just too fracking weird.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
She so right on here. It's true, we've know about this since the 70's. It's really weird that the US (I can only speak for my country) is not hitting this problem hard the way ( as Ms Ocasio-Cortez put it) we worked fervently to deal with the Great Depression or othe issues. It's just too fracking weird.
Well, absolutely right, Brian. But the whole world knew about it and nobody really did anything about it. We all closed our eyes because life was as good as it was. We could have done a lot, but it does not help to complain, so we have to get up now!
There are just too many people who still do not want to make a change in their lives and do not even want to see how big our problems really are. I mean, some still say that we have no man-made climate problem! I only wish these people would wake up. But the money ...: |
So let's set the goals high and we could have the chance to mitigate the effects. But to be honest, I'm not too optimistic here. Changes are laborious and humans are habitual animals...
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, Reuters is corporate news. Do we really expect them to support a new green deal to lower carbon emissions? Hardly.
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
It’s definitely not very well thought out...And it seems like AOC is losing popularity quickly (even within her own party), so I’m not sure she will have any backing of much in the future.
I hate to break it to her, we will still be using oil long after most of us are in the ground...
I’m not sure why everyone seems to be celebrating the fact that we’re destroying the planet at an increasing rate. Why keep up the attacks on her and on the plan? It was only ever supposed to be a conversation starter, and guess what, it got the conversation revved up at the national and even international level.
The point is not what we will "probably will do" but what we might think of doing that makes more sense. If we don't push for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions then we should be honest and say what we really mean which would go something like this:
"Fuck the planet. I like living my life the way I do and I don't give a shit about how that affects future generations of people and other species. I don't want to be bothered with having to think about, let alone do anything about, the way I live. We're doomed anyway so fuck it, party on."
That basically what (at least by our actions) we are saying if we don't support that which makes better sense. Do most people really want to make the planet unlivable for future generations? I don't think so. Are most of us too lazy and/or selfish to do anything about it? I think so, yes.
So let's start turning things around. There are so many things each one of us can do and we all know what they are.
Edit: Oh, and by the way, Reuters is corporate news. Do we really expect them to support a new green deal to lower carbon emissions? Hardly.
Be careful with that kind of talk around here
Hey man, you know my motto: "Live dangerously"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
And you made a great point kce- we would do well to stop complaining about what we haven't done and start moving forward. I agree that humans are slow to change but on the other hand, we also occasionally surprise ourselves by taking action. We just need the right motivation to do so. Good leadership is hugely important that way.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,683
The only problem I have with "The Green New Deal" is the name. As soon as the word GREEN pops up anywhere these days, all too often the cliches, the jokes, the true-believer syndrome (well-meaning though our idealism may be), the inevitable taking of sides-- all of this gives the core idea a patina that resembles something trendy rather than urgent.
The bottom line isn't what set of feelings or beliefs we spin on something, but what we come more and more to know about something.
For example, here are a few things we are beginning to learn that are, in all probability, likely true or very close to true about our impact on climate here in the late innings of the industrial era:
The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 412 parts per million. A recent climate model (from an article referenced below*) states, "...our results indicate that the current CO2 concentration of ~410 ppm is unprecedented over the past 3 million years."
The same article concludes, " In the context of future climate change, our results imply that a failure to significantly reduce CO2
emissions to comply with the Paris Agreement target of limiting global
warming well below 2°C will not only bring Earth’s climate away from
Holocene-like conditions, but also push it beyond climatic conditions
experienced during the entire current geological period."
Is this true? I don't know, be skeptical. But I'd give fair wager that it is and if so, imagine the consequences: "the entire current geological period" refers to "The
Quaternary [which] is the most recent geological Period, covering the past ~2.6 million
years."
We could be changing climate to a state not seen in at least 2.6 million years. I think at the very least, that is worth considering.
Eleven years ago, Jock Finlayson and his colleagues at the Business Council of B.C. were mildly alarmed by how quickly Gordon Campbell's provincial government implemented North America's first carbon tax.
"We were concerned, to be candid, about what the implications of this would be for our members and for the business community generally," Finlayson, the council's chief policy officer told CBC.
Today, after watching the tax in action for more than a decade, he still doesn't love it, but he's also seen the advantages of putting a price on pollution.
"I'd say in macro [economic] terms, because of the way the policy was designed, it's probably been a wash. In other words, I don't think it's either helped or hurt overall growth in the provincial economy," he said.
As the last four provinces to resist carbon pricing are dragged into a new federal tax scheme, the country's oldest carbon tax might serve as a good example of what to expect.
'Good for the environment and the economy'
To be clear, not everyone is happy with the tax. The right-leaning Fraser Institute argues it makes B.C. less attractive for investors.
"The end result is less investment, lower rates of job-creation, and fewer opportunities for British Columbians to prosper," the institute's Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam wrote in a 2017 op-ed opposing increases to the tax.
And Finlayson said he's still concerned that businesses in industries like pulp and paper, mining and food processing can't compete with rivals in other provinces because of the high price of energy in B.C.
But the economists who spoke to CBC for this story suggest B.C.'s tax is working as it should. By making pollution more expensive to reflect the environmental costs, the tax appears to have changed the behaviour of British Columbians and led to a drop in greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time, while sectors of B.C. economy that consume a lot of energy have suffered from the higher cost of fuel, others, apparently spurred by corporate tax cuts, are thriving.
"This carbon tax is a model for the world that well-designed carbon pricing can be good for the environment and the economy. In the 11 years since B.C. brought in its carbon tax, it's outpaced the rest of Canada both on emission reduction and GDP growth," said Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.
Looking back, the origin story for B.C.'s carbon tax sounds counterintuitive.
The tax, first set at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, was brought in by a B.C. Liberal government — the equivalent of a conservative administration in most parts of the country.
But that was July 2008, before the true onset of the global financial crisis. Al Gore's climate change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was still fuelling a wave of concern about greenhouse gas emissions.
"It was a very popular tax. I think it caught both the NDP and the Greens provincially off guard," said pollster Mario Canseco, president of Vancouver's Research Co.
The NDP launched an "axe the tax" campaign, arguing it would kill jobs, and leader Carole James promised she'd dump it if she were elected premier in the 2008 election.
She wasn't, and the Liberals helped ease British Columbians into the idea of a carbon tax by making it revenue neutral. Taxpayers received rebates, and the province lowered corporate and personal income taxes.
NDP embrace the tax
Since then, the provincial NDP has come around on the tax. When the party came into power two years ago, James was named finance minister, and she's overseen a thaw of the carbon tax rate, which had been frozen since 2012.
As of April 1, B.C.'s rate is $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, which translates to 8.89 cents per litre of gasoline. It's set to top out at $50 a tonne in 2021.
In the meantime, numerous researchers have tried to determine the impact of the tax. According to a 2015 paper, B.C.'s emissions had dropped by between five and 15 per cent since the tax was implemented, and it had a "negligible impact" on the overall economy.
Elgie, of the University of Ottawa, was part of a wide-ranging 2013 study that showed a 19 per cent drop in B.C.'s per capita fuel consumption in the first four years of the tax, while the province's economy slightly outperformed the rest of the country.
"The other side of the carbon price is that it creates an incentive for innovation," Elgie said. "B.C. has now become a leader in clean technology."
He pointed to Squamish's Carbon Engineering, which has developed technology that it says can suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel.
Sumeet Gulati, a professor in food and resource economics at the University of British Columbia, has studied the impact of the carbon tax on consumer choices — particularly, the choices of drivers.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A 2016 research paper he co-wrote suggests the carbon tax has pushed B.C. drivers to choose cars that are more fuel efficient.
"If we didn't have it … we'd be at least emitting on average seven per cent more per person in B.C. in terms of carbon emissions while driving, and cars would be about four per cent less fuel efficient," Gulati told CBC.
Room for improvement
In recent years, the province has abandoned the idea of keeping the tax revenue neutral, and is now using some of the proceeds to encourage development of green technologies.
The folks at the Fraser Institute say that's a mistake.
"Firms in British Columbia now not only face the highest carbon tax in North America, but they no longer enjoy any of the offsetting benefits that briefly existed as a result of lower [corporate income tax] rates," the authors of a January report wrote.
Gulati also believes a return to revenue neutrality is essential.
"It's important to make it politically resilient, despite who comes into power," he said.
On the other hand, he'd like to see the rate keep rising, up to $75 or even $100 per tonne of emissions.
As for Finlayson at the Business Council of B.C., he'd like to see more support for businesses that have been hurt by the tax, including exporters, manufacturers and pulp and paper mills.
He'd also like to see a true Canada-wide carbon pricing scheme that would put businesses on an even playing field while tackling emissions.
"It's unfortunate that the whole national climate change policy framework is in disarray at the moment because of all the opposition that we're seeing from some provinces and some political parties," he said.
"If we're going to deal with this climate change issue and do so through a sensible carbon pricing regime, the logic is very powerful to try and do that in a coordinated, pan-Canadian way."
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
pickupyourwill
Posts: 3,135
https://youtu.be/zkdOlPzD2NI
Comments
If the renewable energy industry is not willing to endorse your plan, then, just maybe the plan is a bad plan...
1. Stop having babies
2. Stop eating meat and processed food
3. Stop driving and flying; turn the lights (and everything else) off.
To have any impact at all, we need to drastically restructure every part of the way we live. We know we are not going to reuse and recycle our way out. Reduce everything. But starting with the amount of people on the planet, nobody will even talk about over-population as an issue because it's incomprehensible that we could control reproduction at the level it's needed.
I work with young adolescents -- our supposedly woke generation on climate change -- and have this conversation all the time. As soon as I throw out the first example of what they personally could REDUCE (their constantly upgraded and supposedly reused and recycled -- ya right -- electronics), the cries of "Nooooooo" begin. "But we need them for emergencies. But my games help me relax. But . . . but . . . but."
We're pretty much doomed. The only thing left to know is whether it's an immediate mass catastrophe or a slow, drawn-out burn that kills us all. I've become a complete nihilist in my thinking on this issue. Not a position I want to take, but I have no faith in humanity to understand the seriousness of the crisis we're in, to prevent anything. For the most part, we are a reactionary, self-serving species.
Well, absolutely right, Brian. But the whole world knew about it and nobody really did anything about it.
We all closed our eyes because life was as good as it was.
We could have done a lot, but it does not help to complain, so we have to get up now!
There are just too many people who still do not want to make a change in their lives and do not even want to see how big our problems really are. I mean, some still say that we have no man-made climate problem!
I only wish these people would wake up. But the money ...: |
So let's set the goals high and we could have the chance to mitigate the effects.
But to be honest, I'm not too optimistic here. Changes are laborious and humans are habitual animals...
Good glad there’s judges that are shooting his EO down ..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-tax-bc-1.5083734
Eleven years ago, Jock Finlayson and his colleagues at the Business Council of B.C. were mildly alarmed by how quickly Gordon Campbell's provincial government implemented North America's first carbon tax.
"We were concerned, to be candid, about what the implications of this would be for our members and for the business community generally," Finlayson, the council's chief policy officer told CBC.
Today, after watching the tax in action for more than a decade, he still doesn't love it, but he's also seen the advantages of putting a price on pollution.
"I'd say in macro [economic] terms, because of the way the policy was designed, it's probably been a wash. In other words, I don't think it's either helped or hurt overall growth in the provincial economy," he said.
As the last four provinces to resist carbon pricing are dragged into a new federal tax scheme, the country's oldest carbon tax might serve as a good example of what to expect.
'Good for the environment and the economy'
To be clear, not everyone is happy with the tax. The right-leaning Fraser Institute argues it makes B.C. less attractive for investors.
"The end result is less investment, lower rates of job-creation, and fewer opportunities for British Columbians to prosper," the institute's Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam wrote in a 2017 op-ed opposing increases to the tax.
And Finlayson said he's still concerned that businesses in industries like pulp and paper, mining and food processing can't compete with rivals in other provinces because of the high price of energy in B.C.
But the economists who spoke to CBC for this story suggest B.C.'s tax is working as it should. By making pollution more expensive to reflect the environmental costs, the tax appears to have changed the behaviour of British Columbians and led to a drop in greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time, while sectors of B.C. economy that consume a lot of energy have suffered from the higher cost of fuel, others, apparently spurred by corporate tax cuts, are thriving.
"This carbon tax is a model for the world that well-designed carbon pricing can be good for the environment and the economy. In the 11 years since B.C. brought in its carbon tax, it's outpaced the rest of Canada both on emission reduction and GDP growth," said Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.
Looking back, the origin story for B.C.'s carbon tax sounds counterintuitive.
The tax, first set at $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, was brought in by a B.C. Liberal government — the equivalent of a conservative administration in most parts of the country.
But that was July 2008, before the true onset of the global financial crisis. Al Gore's climate change documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was still fuelling a wave of concern about greenhouse gas emissions.
"It was a very popular tax. I think it caught both the NDP and the Greens provincially off guard," said pollster Mario Canseco, president of Vancouver's Research Co.
The NDP launched an "axe the tax" campaign, arguing it would kill jobs, and leader Carole James promised she'd dump it if she were elected premier in the 2008 election.
She wasn't, and the Liberals helped ease British Columbians into the idea of a carbon tax by making it revenue neutral. Taxpayers received rebates, and the province lowered corporate and personal income taxes.
NDP embrace the tax
Since then, the provincial NDP has come around on the tax. When the party came into power two years ago, James was named finance minister, and she's overseen a thaw of the carbon tax rate, which had been frozen since 2012.
As of April 1, B.C.'s rate is $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, which translates to 8.89 cents per litre of gasoline. It's set to top out at $50 a tonne in 2021.
In the meantime, numerous researchers have tried to determine the impact of the tax. According to a 2015 paper, B.C.'s emissions had dropped by between five and 15 per cent since the tax was implemented, and it had a "negligible impact" on the overall economy.
Elgie, of the University of Ottawa, was part of a wide-ranging 2013 study that showed a 19 per cent drop in B.C.'s per capita fuel consumption in the first four years of the tax, while the province's economy slightly outperformed the rest of the country.
"The other side of the carbon price is that it creates an incentive for innovation," Elgie said. "B.C. has now become a leader in clean technology."
He pointed to Squamish's Carbon Engineering, which has developed technology that it says can suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel.
Sumeet Gulati, a professor in food and resource economics at the University of British Columbia, has studied the impact of the carbon tax on consumer choices — particularly, the choices of drivers.
A 2016 research paper he co-wrote suggests the carbon tax has pushed B.C. drivers to choose cars that are more fuel efficient.
"If we didn't have it … we'd be at least emitting on average seven per cent more per person in B.C. in terms of carbon emissions while driving, and cars would be about four per cent less fuel efficient," Gulati told CBC.
Room for improvement
In recent years, the province has abandoned the idea of keeping the tax revenue neutral, and is now using some of the proceeds to encourage development of green technologies.
The folks at the Fraser Institute say that's a mistake.
"Firms in British Columbia now not only face the highest carbon tax in North America, but they no longer enjoy any of the offsetting benefits that briefly existed as a result of lower [corporate income tax] rates," the authors of a January report wrote.
Gulati also believes a return to revenue neutrality is essential.
"It's important to make it politically resilient, despite who comes into power," he said.
On the other hand, he'd like to see the rate keep rising, up to $75 or even $100 per tonne of emissions.
As for Finlayson at the Business Council of B.C., he'd like to see more support for businesses that have been hurt by the tax, including exporters, manufacturers and pulp and paper mills.
He'd also like to see a true Canada-wide carbon pricing scheme that would put businesses on an even playing field while tackling emissions.
"It's unfortunate that the whole national climate change policy framework is in disarray at the moment because of all the opposition that we're seeing from some provinces and some political parties," he said.
"If we're going to deal with this climate change issue and do so through a sensible carbon pricing regime, the logic is very powerful to try and do that in a coordinated, pan-Canadian way."
Great to see JK speak and tell it like it is ..