The BC Carbon Tax is Retarded

Whoops! I was not thinking entirely clearly when I wrote this post. Proceed with caution!

Sitting in line for gas on the last day before BC's new Carbon Tax is imposed (hey, I was just unluckily low on gas, not hoarding!), I had some time to ponder the full impact of this legislation.

Absolutely nothing, that's what. Well, in an ideal, frictionless world there would be no impact - we can actually look forward to a small amount of productivity being lost in BC, with no decrease in carbon emissions.

If it was just a regular tax hike, it might result in more money being spent on greening our cities, or treeplanting, or another activity that will produce slightly less carbon than just going about life as normal.

But it's not a regular tax hike. In fact, the BC Liberals have gone out of their way to ensure this tax will absolutely 100% not decrease carbon emissions!

By law, government must show how all of the carbon tax revenue flows back to individuals and businesses as tax reductions.

That's right. They hired a bunch of people to define and administer a brand new tax, spent some more cash mailing one time rebates out, and the net result is the money gets shuffled around a bit. I'll take them at their word that the resulting tax cuts will distribute the revenue relatively fairly and that this tax isn't particularly regressive.

Let's restate things one more time to be really clear: A bunch of money is collected. The BC Government takes a small slice off the top to pay for the salaries of the people that administer the program (or other tax dollars have to be diverted for that purpose - same difference). Whatever is left is given back to the people that paid the tax to begin with so that they can afford to by more carbon based products. Oh, and all the companies that have to collect the tax raise their prices a tiny bit to compensate for the extra overhead.

In summary: No reduction in carbon emissions, fewer people in the province doing productive work, and prices effectively go a tiny bit up on everything we buy.

Good job, geniuses.

Sheryl Crow Is Crazy - Like A Fox!

It must be upsetting to find out that most people are willing to assume you are a lunatic when you post joke bizarro solutions to environmental problems.

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, whose judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I have to admit that I wasn't sure either. I mean, rationing toilet paper makes more sense than Kyoto. But I refrained from jumping on the "Sheryl Crow is an idiot" bandwagon because I was sure it was going to turn out to be joke (hard to imagine a crazy person writing that well), and if not, well it's just tacky to mock the differently abled.

Al Gore is a Genius

It's always been pretty obvious that Al Gore's main interest in the environment is that it keeps the spotlight on him, and the speaking gigs rolling in.

But the fact that by "buys carbon offsets" he means "buys more shares in the companies he spends every day promoting" is fantastically brilliant!

So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

I can only dream of the day when I can convince so many people that my self-centered actions are actually for the global good.

Are Trees the Solution to Many Environmental Problems?

An ex-Greenpeacer (although not obviously anti-Greenpeace) writes at length in favor of more logging (and more trees in general). He criticizes environmental groups that fight logging on general principles and the theoretical predictions of extinction that are paraded around as fact.

I love this kind of article - rather than screaming about doom and gloom Moore is thinking the alternatives through and coming up with ideas that don't obviously require a massive restructuring of society and the world.

By far the most powerful tool at our disposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption is the growing of trees and the use of wood. Most environmentalists recognize the positive benefits of growing trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But then they say "don't cut them down or you will undo the good that's been done". This would be true if you simply piled the trees in a heap and lit them on fire. If, however, the wood is used as a substitute for fossil fuels and for building materials whose production consumes fossil fuels, we can dramatically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions. For example, consider a large coal-burning power plant. If we grow trees and use the wood as a substitute for the coal we are able to offset nearly 100 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions from the power plant. That is because sustainable use of wood results in a zero net release of carbon dioxide whereas coal combustion counts for the full 100 percent. If environmentalists would recognize this fact it would inevitably lead them to believe that the answer is in growing more trees and using more wood rather than in reducing our use of this most renewable resource.