rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

An inconvenient truth: B.C.'s carbon emissions on the rise

Photo: BC Gov Photos/flickr

It was a good story while it lasted. Over the past few years, the B.C. government and many in the policy community have spun a tale about the remarkable success of B.C.'s climate action policies, with a big spotlight on the carbon tax as a driver of lower emissions while B.C.'s economy outperformed the rest of the country. In B.C.'s case, the carbon tax was announced in the February 2008 "green" budget, and implemented in July (starting at $10 per tonne, with annual $5 increments to the current $30 per tonne, in place since July 2012).

Because of time lags, only a few years of data were available when judgements about B.C.'s climate action success began to roll out. With Canada's new National Inventory Report (NIR), we now have data up to 2013, and it's not a pretty story for B.C. (Part 3, Table A10-20).

In the supposed era of climate action, the trend for B.C.'s emissions is moving in the wrong direction. Emissions have been rising every year since 2010, and as of 2013 are up 4.3 per cent above 2010 levels. Moreover, if you look closely at the underlying table, the rise is almost entirely explained by the growth of the natural gas industry. On the bright side, however, B.C.'s emissions are down 2.5 per cent relative to 2005 levels, and 3.2 per cent since 2000.

Unfortunately, the new NIR table does not fill in all of the years in-between, and astute observers would note that B.C.'s base year for its legislated GHG reduction targets is 2007. The new national report adopted changes in measurement to reflect the latest climate science (Part 1, Chapter 8), so we cannot use previously published numbers from the B.C. government. B.C. has more detailed data available online but the next update won't happen until mid-2016, so their data only go to 2012.

The older numbers show that emissions were already falling by the time B.C.'s 2008 green budget and carbon tax came into play. The data show no change from 2007 to 2008, but a notable 4.6 per cent drop from 2008 to 2009, which accounts for essentially all of the claim of emission reductions. I suspect, however, that this is better explained by the financial crisis in Fall 2008 and subsequent recession than by the carbon tax.

Why? As mid-2008, B.C.'s shiny new carbon tax added only 2.3 cents per litre at the gas pump, while prices were already north of $1.40 per litre. Those high prices were driven by market forces but also by other taxes. You often hear that Canada has "no price on carbon" but fuel taxes are just carbon taxes with a smaller tax base. Indeed, B.C.'s motor fuel taxes are substantially larger than the carbon tax then or since, with a general rate of 14.5 cents per litre of gasoline and up to 25.5 cents per litre in Metro Vancouver. The federal excise tax on gasoline of 10 cents per litre, plus GST on the purchase price, is also larger than the carbon tax, even at today's 6.67 cents per litre equivalent ($30 per tonne).

The B.C. government makes the dubious claim that they met their interim GHG reduction target for 2012 of 6 per cent below 2007 levels. Even then, B.C.'s numbers showed only a 4.4 per cent drop, which as noted, there is a one-time drop from 2008 to 2009 that is at play. The claim of 6 per cent reduction is based on the purchase of bogus carbon credits (or offsets). This is more fiction than fact: there is no detailed reporting on how offsets were used, especially amid an offset regime that has massive credibility problems after a scathing Auditor-General's report in 2013.

Stripping out the bogus offsets, in national terms B.C.'s performance is nothing special. Going back to the new NIR data, B.C.'s slight drop in emissions since 2005 (2.5 per cent) is similar to Canada as a whole (down 3.1 per cent). Also like B.C., Canada's emissions have been growing since 2009 (up 3.9 per cent). B.C. has fared better than Alberta, whose emissions shot up 14 per cent since 2005, but Canada's true climate leaders are Quebec (down 8.4 per cent) and especially Ontario (down 19 per cent), which is phasing out coal-fired electricity generation.

OK, what about the storyline that, in spite of the new carbon tax B.C.'s economy has outperformed the rest of the country. From 2008 to 2013, B.C.'s economy grew 12.6 per cent, while Canada's grew 15.1 per cent; from 2010 to 2013, B.C. 11.5 per cent to the national 13.9 per cent; and even just 2013, B.C. 3.2 per cent to Canada 3.4 per cent (all from CANSIM Table 384-0038). If we go to constant dollars, there is a very slight edge to B.C. over Canada, but it works out to 0.07 per cent per year in GDP growth rates.

So B.C. can claim that the carbon tax has not lead to weaker economic performance than Canada as a whole. But that's not saying much because the carbon tax is still too small to be very effective. Even less so with current oil prices -- it would take an additional carbon tax above $200 per tonne just to get prices at the pump back to where they were a year ago.

Bottom line: B.C.'s emissions are on the rise. We need to stop telling fairy tales about B.C.'s climate action policies and its carbon tax (and I say this as a general supporter of carbon taxes). B.C.'s proposed "climate action 2.0" is wishful thinking; so far all we have is the intention to create a committee to propose further actions.

Meanwhile, we cannot ignore the inconvenient truth about B.C.'s ambition to launch a massive Liquefied Natural Gas industry. If realized, these plans would put into the atmosphere some 200-300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (4-5 times B.C.'s own annual emissions in 2013). This carbon is currently safely sequestered underground in deep shale formations, and climate action demands it stay that way. The bulk of those emissions would count in the importing country's (Japan or China) emissions inventory, not B.C.'s. But even the smaller amount of emissions in B.C. that do get counted (associated with fracking, processing, and getting product onto those LNG tankers) would make it impossible for the province to meet its legislated targets.

Photo: BC Gov Photos/flickr

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.